WD 5325 
M63 
922 
43 
Jopy 1 




THE 



Anthracite Strike 

OF 1922 




THE ANTHRACITE BUREAU OF INFORMATION 

PHILADELPHIA, PA. 



The Anthracite Strike 
of 1922 



A Chronological Statement of the Communications 
and Negotiations between the Hard Coal Operators 
and the United Mine Workers of America, including 

The Anthracite Operators' Reply 
to the Miners' Demands 

and Embodying a Plan for Avoiding Future Suspensions; also 

The Arbitration Proposal 

An offer by the Operators to Refer Issues in Dispute 
to a Presidential Commission 

The Government's Proposal 

Endorsed by the President and Offered through 
Senators Pepper and Reed ; also 

The Agreement of September 2 

An extension of wage contract and working conditions 

to August 31, 1923, pending investigation 

by a Federal Coal Commission 



THE ANTHRACITE BUREAU OF INFORMATION 
PHILADELPHIA, PA. 



.ft 1,3 
/? ZZ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

FEB Splits 

eocuwes'ia division J 



> 



The Anthracite Strike of 1922 

A Chronological Statement of the Communications and Negotiations 

between the Hard Coal Operators and the United Mme 

Workers of America 

FOR about twenty years wage agreements between the anthracite 
operators and their employes have in every case been written so 
as to terminate on March 31. For the same period it has been 
customary for both sides to meet in advance of the expiration of the 
agreement, usually some time early in March, to negotiate a new under- 
standing. Of late years — notably in 1916 and 1920 — there has been 
an agreement between the parties to the negotiations that if a new 
contract could not be completed by the time the old one expired the 
mines should remain at work, with the understanding that when the new 
agreement was reached it should be retroactive to April 1. 

The wage contract of 1920, entered into following hearings and an 
award by the United States Anthracite Coal Commission appointed by 
President Wilson, was limited by its terms to the period ending March 
31, 1922. Bearing upon the negotiation of a new contract, the follow- 
ing correspondence occurred: 

UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 

JOHN L. LEWIS, President Affiliated with A. F. of L. 

Office of the President 
Indianapolis, Indiana 

1114 Merchants Bank Bldg. 
Mr. S. D. Warriner February 20, 1922 

Chairman, General Policies Committee 
Anthracite Coal Operators 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

My dear Sir: 

The wage agreement in the anthracite coal fields between the anthracite 
coal operators and the United Mine Workers of America, Districts 1, 7 and 
9, terminates on March 31, 1922. In recognition of this fact, the Interna- 
tional Convention of the United Mine Workers of America has authorized me 
to address yourself and associate anthracite operators upon the question of 
the holding of a joint conference for the purpose of negotiating a new wage 
agreement to be effective from April 1 . 

[3] 



As a tentative proposition, subject to change through necessity of mutual 
convenience, I suggest that such a joint meeting convene in New York 
City on Wednesday, March 15, 1922, at 10 a. m. If this suggestion should 
meet with the approval of the anthracite operators, I shall be glad to arrange 
for adequate representation from the Tri-District Scale Committee and rep- 
resentatives of the International union. 

The place of meeting in New York upon the suggested date could be 
determined later in the usual way. 

Trusting to hear from you at your convenience, I am 

Yours truly, 
(Signed) JOHN L. LEWIS, President 



GENERAL POLICIES COMMITTEE OF ANTHRACITE 

OPERATORS 

437 Chestnut Street 

Philadelphia, Pa., February 25, 1922. 

Mr. John L. Lewis, President 
United Mine Workers of America 
1114 Merchants Bank Building 
Indianapolis, Indiana 

My dear Sir: 

I have your letter of February 20th, suggesting that a joint conference be 
held in New York on Wednesday, March 15th, for the purpose of negotiating 
a new agreement to be effective April 1, 1922. 

I regret that so little time is available before the termination of our 
present agreement as to render our negotiations hurried, but under the cir- 
cumstances your suggestion of the time and place is agreeable to us. We 
will therefore be very glad to meet you in New York City on Wednesday, 
March 15th. 

It would be more convenient for us to have the meeting convene at 2 
p. m. instead of 10 a. m. and I trust this will be agreeable to you. 

Yours very truly, 

(Signed) S. D. WARRINER, Chairman 

General Policies Committee 



In accordance with the above letters, the anthracite operators and 
representatives of the United Mine 'Workers of America in the anthracite 
region met in joint session in the Hotel Pennsylvania, New York City, 
March 15, 1922. At that time the representatives of the union form- 
ally presented the following schedule of demands, which had been formu- 
lated by a tri-district convention of the union in the anthracite region, 
held in Shamokin, January 20, 1922: 

[4] 



The Miners* Demands 

1. We demand that the next contract be for a period not exceeding two years 
and that the making of individual agreements and contracts in the 
mining of coal shall be prohibited and where mechanical loading is done 
the committee and company officials shall have authority to establish 
proper rates. 

2. We demand that the contract wage scale shall be increased twenty (20) 
percent and that all day men be granted an increase of $1.00 per day, 
and further that the differential in cents per day existing between classi- 
fications of labor previous to the award of the United States Anthracite 
Coal Commission shall be restored and that the rates applied in solid 
mining shall be the minimum rate on pillar work or second mining. 

3. In conformity with the thought expressed in the award of the United 
States Anthracite Coal Commission WE DEMAND that a uniform wage 
scale be established so that the various occupations of like character at 
the several collieries shall command the same wage. 

4. W T e demand that the provisions of the eight hour day clause in the pres- 
ent agreement shall be applied to all persons working in or around the 
anthracite collieries coming under the jurisdiction of the U. M. W. of A. 
regardless of the occupations, and that in the bringing of these employes 
under the eight hour day their basis shall be arrived at in the same 
manner as the basis was arrived at in the case of pumpmen and engi- 
neers, plus the increase demanded in Section 2 of this document. And 
further, that inside day laborers shall work on the basis of eight hours 
underground. 

5. We demand time and half time for all overtime and double time for 
Sunday and holiday work. 

6. W T e demand that the next contract made between representatives of the 
Anthracite operators and the United Mine Workers of America shall con- 
tain a standard check-off provision. 

7. We demand that all dead work shall be paid for on a uniform considera- 
tion basis and that where more than one miner is employed they shall all 
receive the same rate. 

8. We demand payment for all sheet iron, props, timber, forepoling, extra 
and abnormal shoveling and cribbing and where miners are prevented 
from working on account of lack of supplies that they be accorded the 
opportunity of making a shift at some other work at the consideration 
rate. 

9. We demand in the settlement of grievances that the aggrieved parties 
shall have the right to demand settlement upon a basis of equity, and if 
such equity settlement is requested, the conditions of 1902 shall not 
enter into or prejudice the case. 

10. W T e demand that a uniform rate of seventeen (17) cents per inch be paid 
for all refuse in all kinds of mining up to ten (10) feet wide and a pro- 
portional rate be applied for over ten (10) feet, with the understanding 
that this is to be a minimum rate not affecting higher rates than exist. 

11. We demand that where coal is paid for by the car it shall be changed and 
payment shall be made on the legal ton basis of 2240 pounds and that 
dockage shall be eliminated. 

[ 6 ] 



12. We demand that where jack hammers are necessary and of advantage in 
the work that they be furnished free of charge to miner or miners in- 
cluding the power necessary to operate the machine. 

13. We demand a more liberal and satisfactory clause in the agreement cov- 
ering the question of miners who encounter abnormal conditions in their 
working places and that to correct this situation the following quotation, 
"Unless otherwise directed by the foreman," shall be stricken from the 
agreement covering this particular subject, and that the consideration 
rate at each colliery should be equivalent to the average daily earnings 
of contract miners under normal conditions. 

14. We demand that the wage schedules be brought up to date containing all 
new rates and occupations, and that copies be supplied the committees 
and filed with the Board of Conciliation. 

15. We demand that carpenters and other tradesmen be paid the recognized 
standard rates existing in the region, which rate should not be less than 
ninety (90) cents per hour and which trade rate should be paid to all 
those who have served four years at their particular trade. 

16. We demand that in retrenchment, the laying off of men and in the re- 
hiring that seniority shall apply. 

17. We demand that employes of stripping contractors be brought under the 
general agreement on their present basis of wages and conditions plus the 
increase demanded in Section 2 hereof. 

18. We demand that powder be delivered to the miners at their working 
places, or as convenient as possible to the working place, in a safe and 
careful manner by the company. 

19. We demand that full eight hour opportunity be given to employes at col- 
lieries which have been working as a general schedule on a six and seven 
hour day, and that where eight hour opportunity is denied to those em- 
ployes their wages shall be readjusted — this demand is based upon normal 
working conditions and does not contemplate the inclusion of accidents. 

At the Shamokin Convention at which their demands were formu- 
lated the following "recommendations" were also adopted, but were 
not presented at the joint conference. The first notice the operators 
had of them was at the initial meeting of the joint sub-committee on 
March 21 when John L. Lewis, as the first matter of business read into 
the minutes of the meeting the order calling for a suspension of work 
on March 31, ten days later: 

We recommend that our Scale Committee use every effort to have the 
operators agree to some provision in the agreement regarding the price of 
coal and rent to be charged the employes. 

The Committee recommends that the Scale Committee to negotiate the 
contract shall be composed of the officers, the Executive Board Members of 
the three districts, together with the resident International officers and three 
mine workers from each district affected, the District President to select the 
three mine workers in each district, subject to the approval of the Executive 
Board. 

[ 6 ] 



We further recommend that the Scale Committee be instructed to per- 
fect arrangements providing for a suspension of mining on April 1, 1922, 

in the event that no satisfactory agreement has been arrived at as of that date. 

In previous years, as mentioned above, this difficulty was met by 
an understanding to keep the mines at work and to make any new 
arrangement retroactive, but in this case the demands themselves con- 
tained a provision for closing the mines unless a scale were worked out 
and agreed to by March 31.* 

After two days' deliberation, the anthracite operators on March 
17 made the following reply to the demands in joint conference: 



Operators' Reply to the Miners' 
Demands 

Mr. John L. Lewis, President, and Members of the Scale Committee repre- 
senting Districts 1, 7 and 9 of the United Mine Workers of America. 

Gentlemen: 

The object of this conference should be to construct a working agreement 
which will, in contrast with conditions in other coal fields, continue to afford 
a basis whereby the anthracite industry will provide fair wages, full time em- 
ployment to its workers, and a maximum production of coal at a cost which 
will enable it to be sold to its customers at a price they are able to pay. 

The consuming public is largely composed of wage earners in other in- 
dustries, who have already accepted substantial decreases in their earnings, 
and who cannot continue to pay present prices in order that the workmen in 
the anthracite field may hold their present scale of wages. 

With these facts in mind the General Policies Committee is authorized 
to say in reply to your communication to the Joint Conference of Anthracite 
Operators and Miners, embodying 19 demands to be used as the basis of an 
agreement to take the place of the one now in effect, which expires March 
31st, next: 

Careful consideration has been given to the demands and to the explana- 
tory remarks made by the speakers at the Joint Conference. 



* This ultimatum — that an agreement must be made within a half month or 
the mines would be shut down — allowed a period much shorter than has ever been 
found sufficient for the negotiation of a wage contract in the anthracite region 
during the present century. The periods required for the execution of new con- 
tracts will be found below, the old contract having expired March 31 in each case: 

Year Date of Contract 

1906 May 7 

1909 April 29 

1912 May 20 

1916 May 5 

1920 Sept. 2 

The contract of 1920 was entered into as a result of the award of the U. S. 
Anthracite Coal Commission. Before the appointment of that Commission, on 
June 3, 1920, the operators and mine workers had been in conference from March 
9 to April 29 without agreeing. Secretary of Labor "Wilson intervened as a friendly 
mediator and conducted negotiations fruitlessly from May 1 to May 21. The 
Commission began hearings June 24 and its report to the President was issued 
under date of August 30. The agreement was made retroactive to April 1, the 
mine workers receiving practically an extra month's pay. 

[7 ] 



It should be stated in the first place that the Anthracite Operators are 
not unwilling to continue contractual relations with the United Mine Workers 
of America, but on the contrary, are willing to continue the practice of deal- 
ing with that organization as representing their employes, provided that the 
form of contract is in accord with the principles laid down by the Anthracite 
Coal Strike Commission appointed by President Roosevelt in 1902, and the 
Anthracite Coal Commission appointed by President Wilson in 1920; and, 
provided, further, that the jurisdiction of the Board of Conciliation, that has 
been a potent factor in the preservation of peace in the anthracite region, 
shall not be questioned or abridged. 

The operators are ready to consider and discuss any propositions relating 
to wages and working conditions submitted by either party. 

When it comes to matters affecting the cost of production, there is 
another party to be considered, viz: the buyer. Any adjustment which is not 
satisfactory to the buyer must inevitably fail; for in that event production 
cannot be distributed, and the miner will then lose his opportunity for em- 
ployment. 

The interests of all parties will best be conserved by steady work for the 
miner, maximum production at the mines, and the widest possible market for 
the product. To secure this a reasonable cost of production is necessary. 
Anthracite is the only basic commodity which has not receded in cost of pro- 
duction since the war. In fact, costs of anthracite production today are far 
above the war-time peak. 

The deflated pocketbook of the buyer cannot continue to pay the present 
prices. Economy is being practiced by the consumer and various substitutes 
for anthracite are being used. But for the fear on the part of the public of 
a suspension April 1, the recent movement of anthracite would have been even 
less than it was, with the result of short time employment throughout the 
region. The economic situation today not only forbids any increase in costs 
and prices, but compels a reduction. 

Anthracite labor is the only group in this country which has not sus- 
tained a decrease in wages in line with the general readjustment in other 
industries, nor has it suffered a material decline in the opportunity for 
steady work. 

Deflation in the cost of production, 70 percent of which is represented by 
mine labor, is imperative. The Anthracite Operators, after most careful 
thought, can see no alternative. Readjustment of the wage rates is the first 
necessary step to reduce the cost of anthracite to the consumer, and to insure 
continued stability in the industry. 

It is obvious then that prosperity and steady work in the anthracite 
fields must cease unless the price of anthracite coal can be reduced to a 
figure which the consumer can pay. 

We are confident that if in our negotiations this absolutely controlling 
factor is kept constantly in mind, we shall be able to reach a conclusion 
which will promote the welfare of all concerned. And with this hope we are 
prepared to consider through the negotiating committee any matter pertain- 
ing to wages and working conditions presented by either party. 

Following the presentation of the operators' reply, a joint sub- 
committee was named to take up the consideration of a new scale. 

Meanwhile, the members of the United Mine Workers of America 
employed in the anthracite mines quit work March 31, although the 
employers had in the above reply indicated their willingness to enter 

[8 ] 



into negotiations for a new wage agreement and were at the time in con- 
ference with union representatives on the sub-committee. The call for 
this walk-out was issued by the chief executive officers of the union three 
days after having received the official assurance that the anthracite 
operators were prepared to negotiate. The text of the call follows: 



The Suspension Order 

Indianapolis, Ind., March 20, 1922. 

To the Officers and Members of the 
United Mine Workers of America 

Brothers: 

The last International Convention of the United Mine Workers of Amer- 
ica, held in the city of Indianapolis, during the week of February 14, 1922, 
adopted the following declaration as a part of the policy of the United 
Mine Workers of America: 

"The present contract between the coal operators and the United Mine 
Workers of America in both the anthracite and bituminous coal fields termi- 
nates on March 31, 1922. In the event no agreement is reached by April 1, 
we declare in favor of a general suspension of mining operations, such action 
being subject to a referendum vote of the membership of the United Mine 
Workers of America, such referendum vote to be held prior to March 31." 

Since this action was taken the International Officers of the United Mine 
Workers of America have endeavored to meet the operators of the Central 
Competitive Field in Joint Conference for the purpose of negotiating a new 
wage agreement. Invitations to attend such a meeting were repeatedly ex- 
tended by the officers of your organization. The operators of Western Penn- 
sylvania and Southern Ohio positively refused to attend an Interstate meeting, 
while the operators of Eastern Ohio and Indiana agreed to do so only upon 
condition that all the operators representing Western Pennsylvania, Ohio 
Indiana, and Illinois, the States and Districts comprising the Central Com- 
petitive Field, were present. Because the operators refused to meet your 
representatives we have failed to secure an Interstate meeting. We have 
been and now are willing and ready to participate in a Joint Conference of 
Miners and Operators of the Central Competitive Field for the purpose of 
negotiating a new wage agreement but are unable to do so because the coal 
operators will not meet us. The blame and responsibility for a suspension of 
mining operations on April 1st must rest fairly and squarely with the coal 
operators. 

A referendum vote of the Mine Workers of the bituminous coal fields 
was taken and the returns show that the membership has voted overwhelm- 
ingly in favor of a suspension of mining operations on March 31 in the event 
no agreement with the coal operators is reached by that time. 

Furthermore, the representatives of the anthracite mine workers in a 
Tri-District Convention held at Shamokin, Pennsylvania, from January 17th 
to 20th, 1922, adopted the following section as a part of their wage scale 
demands: 

"We further recommend that the scale Committee be instructed to 
perfect arrangements providing for a suspension of mining on April 1, 1922, 

[9 ] 



in the event that no satisfactory agreement has been arrived at as of 
that date." 

Pursuant to the action of the International Convention, the Tri-District 
Convention of the anthracite mine workers and the referendum vote, and in 
conformity with the authority conferred upon your International Officers by 
the International Convention, the undersigned Executive Officers of the 
United Mine Workers of America hereby direct all members of the organ- 
ization employed in and around the anthracite and bituminous coal-produc- 
ing districts to discontinue work and cease the production of coal at mid- 
night on Friday, March 31, 1922. The suspension, ordered by action of the 
International Convention of the United Mine Workers of America and the 
membership by a referendum vote, will continue until terminated by action 
of the policy committee of the United Mine Workers of America and until 
you are further officially advised. 

Fraternally yours, 

JOHN L. LEWIS, President 

PHILIP MURRAY, Vice-President 

WM. GREEN, Secretary-Treasurer 

Of the mine workers' demands coming before the joint sub-com- 
mittee for discussion, six were identical with demands laid before the 
United States Anthracite Coal Commission in 1920, and rejected vn the 
report of that Commission accepted by the President. These were 
demands Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in the schedule for 1922 previously 
cited in this account. 



WAGES AND LIVING COSTS 

The miners, while denying that wages should be based primarily on 
the cost of living, presented figures to show that while the living cost 
in the country as a whole declined 12.6 percent from December, 1919, 
to December, 1921, it declined but 7.9 percent in Scranton. They pre- 
sented a brief, lacking in corroborative detail, setting up that from 
March 1, 1920, to March 1, 1922, rents in the anthracite region out- 
side of Scranton increased 61 percent, light and heat 31 percent and 
sundries 30 percent. They further set forth that the wage award of 
1920 was based upon prices in December, 191,9, and therefore the 
increase was not commensurate with the cost of living, which did not 
reach its peak until July, 1920. 

The operators cited the official records to show that the 1920 
increase was awarded to meet the demand that wages be raised to corre- 
spond with the increases granted bituminous coal miners, and that the 
award had put both classes on the same plane. If there was any period 
in the first half of 1920 when the increased wages were lagging behind 
the rising prices, there was a corresponding period of falling prices, 

[ 10 ] 



so that while prices in December, 1921, were where they were in Decem- 
ber, 1919, wages were much higher than in December, 1919. 

As to the contention that living costs had declined less in Scranton 
than in the United States at large, and less in the anthracite region 
generally than in Scranton, the operators produced figures from the 
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics up to December, 1921, to 
show that from June, 1920, to December, 1921, living costs dropped 
19.5 percent in the country at large and 16.6 percent in Scranton. 

Other figures were given to show that in the anthracite region 
outside of Scranton living costs from July, 1920, to February, 1922, 
dropped more than they did in Scranton, and in some cases more than 
they did in the country at large. 

REGULARITY OF EMPLOYMENT 

The miners' argument for an increase of $1.00 a day in day rates, 
making the minimum for unskilled adult labor outside $5.20 per day 
of eight hours, was based on the assumption that the mines cannot work 
more than 270 days, and that the annual earnings under the increased 
rate would be only $1,404, which, they said, was really not a living 
wage. Indeed, they set forth the argument that $1,800 a year was the 
present cost of maintaining a family of man, woman and three children 
in the anthracite region at a "level of health and modest comfort." 
To support this position a number of "sanctions," opinions and outlines 
of family budgets were submitted. 

As a matter of fact, ordinary unskilled mine labor in the anthra- 
cite industry does not necessarily lose time when the mines are not 
producing coal. Even if the mine and breaker were operated but 270 
days in a year, it would be possible, and it is not at all uncommon, 
for certain classes of labor to make anywhere from 20 to 30 days a 
year more than that number. In this instance, as always, the opera- 
tors took the ground that the way to get a man's annual pay was not 
to multiply his daily rate by the number of days the breaker worked, 
but by the number of days he himself worked. 

In an argument for the increase of contract rates, the miners' 
representatives submitted testimony which was along exactly the same 
lines as the exhibits placed before the United States Anthracite Coal 
Commission in 1920, and rejected by that body. Inferences were 
drawn from the practices of one insurance company, and these practices 
do not apply to anthracite miners solely, but to miners of all sorts. 
Allegation of the existence of many occupational diseases is made, 
but no list of diseases, no mortality figures and no citations of authority 
are given. 

[11] 



THE HAZARD OF MINING 

As so much stress was laid upon the alleged hazard of the contract 
miner's work, the operators cited figures from the Pennsylvania Work- 
men's Compensation Bureau to show that fatalities per million tons 
of coal produced were 5.63 in 1920, compared with 6.44 in 1916 
and with 6.04 as the average for five years; in other words, that 
the fatality rate in 1920 was 12.5 percent less than in 1916 and 6.8 
percent less than the five-year average. The same authority was 
quoted to show that the fatality rate for each one thousand 2,000- 
hour men in 1920 was 2.97 against 3.35 in 1916 and 3.20 the five- 
year average. On that basis, the hazard of the industry was 11.3 
percent less in 1920 than in 1916 and 7.5 percent less than the average 
for the 1916-1920 period. 

Up to this time, the discussions had been confined largely to the 
definite proposals in the mine workers' demands, as expanded in the 
supporting exhibits and analyzed in the memoranda submitted by the 
operators. Those demands of a local nature came in for general dis- 
cussion from time to time and in addition to comparisons of wage rates 
and earnings inside and out of the anthracite region, consideration was 
given to subjects like the result of the shorter work day in England, 
with its effect on mine output. These general discussions continued 
through the month of April. 



What Miners' Demands Would Add 
to Cost of Coal 

On April 10 Samuel D. Warriner, spokesman for the anthracite 
operators, made the following statement: 

The anthracite miners having completed the submission of their 
case in the conferences with operators which have been held almost 
constantly since March 15, the representatives of the operators will 
begin on Tuesday to present counter arguments and facts with regard 
to the miners' nineteen demands. These demands would all result in 
less production and more compensation. 

Throughout these conferences the miners' representatives have 
insisted upon literal compliance with their demands, without abatement 
or modification. We are, nevertheless, hopeful that a settlement can 
be brought about in spite of the fact that all of our employes have 
been called out of the mines regardless of the pending negotiations with 
their representatives. 

[ 12 ] 



PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST OF ANTHRACITE COAL 
DURING LAST NINE YEARS 



71,046,816 tons 
$113,320,000 
70,647,008 tons 
$113,035,000 

68,041,751 tons 
$109,547,000 

66,257,602 tons 
$113,363,000 

74,103,739 tons 

$144,873,000 
72,227,000 tons 

$195,735,000 



66,127,983 tons 

^ $225,496,000 



$252,179,000 



65,458,673 tons 




70,191,096 tons 



$283,961,000 



Constant Upward Tendency In Labor Cost of Producing 
Anthracite Coal 

An interesting comparison of the labor cost of producing anthra- 
cite coal is afforded by the accompanying diagram which is based 
on government records. 

It will be noted that excepting the two war years, 1917 and 1918, 
and again in 1921, the output of anthracite has steadily decreased, 
although the trend of wages has been consistently upward during 
the last nine years. 

In other words, where in 1913 it cost $113,320,000 for labor 
alone to produce 71,046,816 tons of anthracite, or $1,595 a ton, in 
1921 the labor cost to produce 70,191,096 tons — 855,720 tons less 
than in 1913 — was $283,961,000, or $4,045 a ton, an increase of 154 
percent. 

These figures are based on commercial fresh-mined coal. Col- 
liery consumption and washery or dredge product are not included. 

[13] 



An analysis shows that to grant the demands of the miners would 
add approximately $170,000,000 to the annual cost of producing an- 
thracite. As this increase would necessarily be borne by the 53,000,000 
tons of the domestic sizes, the increase in the mine cost would amount 
to more than $3 a ton. 

This added cost would be paid by the consumer who, so far from 
being willing to pay present or increased prices, is rightly demanding 
that the price of anthracite shall be reduced. 

The industry in 1921 paid about $284,000,000 for labor. To con- 
cede the miners' demands would make the payroll of the industry ap- 
proximately $455,000,000 a year. 

The relation of labor cost to production in recent years throws 
considerable light upon conditions. 

In 1917, on a production of 74,000,000 gross tons of commercial 
production, the wage bill was $145,000,000. 

In 1918, on 72,250,000 tons, the labor cost was $195,735,000. 

In 1919, the labor cost of 66,000,000 tons was $225,500,000. 

In 1920 this had risen to $252,175,000 on a commercial produc- 
tion of 65,500,000 tons. 

In 1921 while the commercial production had risen to 70,191,- 
096 tons, the labor cost increased to the unprecedented total of 
$283,961,000. 

This shows a steadily mounting wage bill for a steadily decreasing 
production. 

The increases totaling $170,000,000 now demanded would be super- 
imposed upon the several increases during the war, plus 17.4 percent 
increase in 1920, all of which resulted in an advance of hourly earnings 
of anthracite miners between 1914 and 1921 of 162 percent. 

Anthracite producers see no reason to change the opinion expressed 
at the opening of these conferences with the miners ; namely, that con- 
ditions demand a substantial reduction in the price of hard coal. We 
desire to pay good wages. But the rate of pay is not so important as 
regularity of employment. The problem to be solved is what scale of 
wages will permit the production of anthracite at a price the consumer 
is willing to pay. For, as shown, if the price is too high, consumption 
declines, and the result is irregular employment and dissatisfaction 
all round. 



[ 14 ] 



Anthracite Wages Must Be Brought 
into Line with Other Industries 

On April 21 Mr. Warriner supplemented the foregoing in the fol- 
lowing statement: 

We have informed the representatives of the anthracite miners with 
whom we have been in conference since March 15 that it was our firm con- 
viction that wage and other demands which would result in an increase in 
the price of coal could not be granted. On the contrary, our attitude, as 
stated to the miners' representatives, was that there must be a substantial 
reduction in wages. 

Developments since these negotiations began have only served to con- 
firm the opinion already expressed by the producers of anthracite that the 
price was too high. Not even suspension of production has served to stimu- 
late sales. We are faced by the very practical difficulty that the consumer 
will not pay the price for coal that we are required to ask in order to main- 
tain even the present labor costs. 

We have pointed out to the representatives of the miners that even the 
present wage scale would be a gain of shadow rather than of substance to 
mine workers for the simple reason that production would be curtailed, 
and there would be less work to do. What the men want is not little work 
at excessive wages, but continuous work at reasonable wages. 

Under these circumstances, to grant wage and other demands which 
would add $170,000,000 to the annual cost of producing anthracite, or an 
increase in the mine cost of more than $3.00 a ton on the domestic sizes, 
cannot be seriously 1 considered. 

We have endeavored, and shall in the next few days make further efforts, 
to explain this situation in its true light. It is not that the coal producers 
are themselves unwilling to pay present or higher wages, but that the con- 
sumer refuses to purchase the product at a price at which it must be sold 
if present or higher wages are to be paid. 

We continue to be hopeful that the representatives of the miners will 
appreciate the fact that they alone among all the workers in the country 
cannot expect to retain wages that are even higher than the highest war- 
time rates. 

Actual hourly earnings for industrial workers from July, 1917, to June, 
1921, increased 113 percent. Railroad workers in the same time had in- 
creased their actual hourly earnings 169 percent. But the anthracite workers 
were receiving actual earnings representing an increase of 167 percent. 
Subsequently (Oct. 1921), the average hourly earnings of railroad workers 
decreased to 131 percent, while in anthracite mining the average hourly 
earnings were still 166 percent above 1914. Hourly wages for manufac- 
turing industries are not available later than June, 1921. 

We think it must be obvious that this situation cannot be maintained, 
and it is on that basis that we have informed the representatives of the 
miners that a reduction in wages must be made such as will bring the scale 
paid in this industry into line with wages in other industries, and permit 
a reduction in the price of coal to the consumer. 



[15 ] 



Suggestions Tending to Confuse 
the Situation 



On May 3, representatives of the mine workers on the joint sub- 
committee presented a resolution setting forth that coal prices are too 
high and proposing, first, that the Interstate Commerce Commission 
be invited to investigate anthracite freight rates with a view to ordering 
a reduction if they were found too high, and, second, that the Federal 
Trade Commission be invited to investigate all agencies "which have 
been established for the handling and sale of anthracite coal, extending 
from the mines to the consumer, with the end in view of recommending 
measures of relief from unwarranted costs and profits." 

The position of the operators in rejecting this proposed joint 
resolution was made clear the same day by Mr. S. D. Warriner, Chair- 
man of the General Policies Committee of Anthracite Operators, who 
made this public statement: 

The attitude of the operators respecting resolutions offered by the min- 
ers' representatives calling for an investigation by the Interstate Commerce 
Commission of freight rates and by the Federal Trade Commission of the 
marketing of coal, is as follows: 

As to freight rates, which have been established by the Interstate Com- 
merce Commission, the subject has been under investigation for many months; 
representatives of anthracite producers have appeared before the Commission 
and advocated reductions. Everyone is opposed to "unjust and unreasonable 
rates" and if any such rates are in effect the Commission may be depended 
upon to change them. (Shortly after this the Interstate Commerce Commis- 
sion handed down an order reducing anthracite rates, among others, by 10 
percent effective July 1.) 

The Federal Trade Commission is empowered by law to investigate any 
situation within its jurisdiction and apply corrective measures. Anthracite 
producers, the general impression to the contrary notwithstanding, have not 
only never put any obstacles in the way of the Trade Commission obtaining 
any information in regard to the hard coal industry, but have placed their 
books and other records at the disposal of the authorized agents of the 
Commission, which has already made exhaustive reports on the anthracite 
situation. 

For these reasons the operators have not thought it desirable to join 
with the miners' representatives in resolutions which tend to confuse rather 
than clarify the situation. The matters dealt with in the proposed resolutions 
are not within the jurisdiction of the joint committee of miners and opera- 
tors constituted to negotiate a new contract covering wages and working 
conditions. To concern itself with anything else can only delay and com- 
plicate solution of the issues with which it is dealing, namely, the formula- 
tion of a fair wage scale and reasonable working conditions. The operators 
decline to be diverted from this task by proposals which, whether desirable 
or not, have no bearing upon the task of providing a basis for the resumption 
of anthracite production. 

[16] 



Up to this point in the negotiations discussion was chiefly on the 
wage proposals made by the mine workers, and on Friday, May 8, when 
asked why the operators had not stated definitely the terms they were 
prepared to offer, Mr. Warriner said: 

It would have been a very simple matter at the outset for us to tell the 
miners' representatives what we thought the wage reduction should be. 
But this would necessarily have been a maximum figure to cover all con- 
tingencies, known and unknown. We were and are unwilling to do this. 
We do not intend to put out a "trading proposition." 

Furthermore, we have thought it our duty to our employes to listen 
to and carefully to consider their side of the case, and to give them an equal 
chance to get our viewpoint. 

We believe that real progress has been made towards an understanding, 
and that we are approaching a point where there can be a contact of minds 
on the fundamental problems involved. 

There is already a much better comprehension of the fact that for every 
one in the anthracite region as well as for the mine worker it is better to 
have regular employment at good wages than scant and irregular employ- 
ment at over-inflated wages. 

Our problem is to make the wage reduction not as much but as little as 
possible, and still keep the mines in operation. That is the problem with 
which we are grappling and of which we expect to find a solution fair to all. 
But this solution cannot be brought about hurriedly nor until those con- 
cerned have come to an understanding of facts and conditions which neither 
miners nor operators can ignore. 

Ten days later, May 18, the operators presented their formal 
proposals to the mine workers' representatives on the joint committee. 
This reply to the mine workers' demands not only presented a new 
wage scale, but embodied a plan for avoiding future suspensions during 
the negotiation of wages scales. Following is the complete reply : 

The Anthracite Operators' Reply 
to the Miners' Demands 

Embodying a Plan for Avoidmg Future Suspensions 

New York, May 18, 1922. 

Messrs. John L. Lewis, President, United Mine Workers of America; 
W. J. Brennan, President, District No. 1; Thomas Kennedy, 
President, District No. 7 ; C. J. Golden, President, District No. 9. 

Gentlemen : 

Relative to your nineteen demands, to which we have given care- 
ful consideration, and on the acceptance of which you are still in- 
sisting, we herewith make reply: 

If granted, these demands, the majority of which are practically 
identical with those denied by the United States Anthracite Coal Com- 

[17] 



mission in 1920, would impose an additional burden of at least 
$170,000,000 annually on an industry already carrying labor costs 
above the war time peak. 

It must be obvious to you, from what we have already presented 
in reply, that your demands cannot be granted without irreparable 
injury to the industry and its employes. 

To agree upon a wage scale out of line with wages generally be- 
ing paid for similar service would be as unproductive of satisfactory 
results as has been the continuance of the high wage rates in the bitumi- 
nous union fields, which utterly failed to produce adequate annual earn- 
ings for those employed therein. 

No agreement between us will accomplish the results we both seek 
except one which will provide reasonably steady working time at fair 
wages and the production of coal at a reasonable cost. 

In order to accomplish this result, it is our firm conviction that 
in the face of the decline in wages and prices which has been taking 
place for more than a year in other lines of industry, the anthracite 
industry can no longer continue to pay the present wages, which were 
established by the President's Commission in 1920, at a time when the 
cost of living and the business activity of the country were at the peak. 

Present Scale Above Other Industries 

For the year 1921, the average annual earnings of all men coming 
within the terms of the 1920 agreement who worked in each pay period 
of that year exceeded $1,800, a figure equalled in no other basic in- 
dustry. According to the comprehensive survey recently made by the 
National Industrial Conference Board, anthracite wages show an 
average increase in actual weekly earnings of 152% above the basic 
1914 period, against an increase in the cost of living, as of March 15, 
1922, of only 54.7%. The average earnings of mine workers, as com- 
puted by us, has been practically confirmed not only by the National 
Industrial Conference Board, but also by the United States Bureau 
of Labor Statistics. 

The President's Commission, in 1920, set wage rates in the anthra- 
cite field which, in conjunction with the steady employment offered by 
the industry, produced earnings largely in excess of the increased cost 
of living at that time. Since the award of the Commission, due to the 
decline in commodity prices, the mine workers have further benefited 
by the increasing value of the dollar, while both wages and opportunity 
for employment have declined in other industries. The figures of the 
Industrial Conference Board show a reduction in the cost of living of 
24.4% since July, 1920, and the figures of the United States Bureau 
of Labor Statistics a reduction of 22.9% during the same period. 

[ 18 ] 



Wage Scale Offered 

It is evident that the present economic situation demands a sub- 
stantial decrease in wages if a normal production of anthracite coal is 
to continue and reasonably steady employment is to be provided. There- 
fore, in lieu of the wage program submitted by you, the operators pro- 
pose an agreement embodying the following terms : 

(a) Contract rates shall be decreased 18% below the rates 
established by the United States Anthracite Coal Com- 
mission in August, 1920. 

(b) Day rates of men shall be reduced $1.20 per day or 
per shift below the rates established by the United 
States Anthracite Coal Commission in August, 1920. 

(c) Day rates of boys shall be reduced 72 cents per day 
below the rates established by the United States 
Anthracite Coal Commission in August, 1920. 

This general wage structure represents an average decrease of 
approximately 21%, and will therefore fully maintain the purchas- 
ing value of the wages as established by the Anthracite Coal Com- 
mission in 1920. It provides a minimum rate of 37% cents an hour 
for unskilled men employed outside the mines, with relatively higher 
rates for other occupations requiring skill and experience. 

To Avoid Future Suspensions 

With reference to the terms of the agreement, the operators de- 
plore the disturbance to business and the economic loss resulting from 
frequent controversies and suspensions. In order that this may be 
avoided, we propose a five-year contract, subject, however, to annual 
adjustments as to wage rates only, as follows: 

On February 1 of each year a joint committee of anthracite 
mine workers and operators shall meet to adjust wages, to be effective 
April 1 following, taking into account the following factors as a basis 
of adjustment: 

(a) Changes in the purchasing value of the wage earner's dollar 
within each year as determined in the anthracite region and surround- 
ing territory by recognized standard authorities. 

(b) Opportunity for employment offered by the industry. 

(c) Wages and earnings paid in other basic industries under simi- 
lar living conditions for corresponding service. 

(d) The general economic situation. 

In case no agreement shall have been reached by March 1, in any 
year, the determination of proper wage rates shall be referred to a 
commission to be composed of five persons to be selected by the Pre- 
siding Judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 
Third Judicial Circuit, the personnel of the commission to be as follows : 

[ 19 ] 



Personnel of Proposed Commission 

( 1 ) A mining engineer and geologist, familiar with mining condi- 
tions and coal production, but not in any way connected with coal 
mining properties, either anthracite or bituminous. 

(2) An economist of established reputation who has not been em- 
ployed heretofore by either party. 

(3) A judge of the United States Court for the eastern district of 
Pennsylvania. 

(4) A man who has been affiliated with and is representative of 
the labor movement in the anthracite field. 

(5) A man who by active participation in the mining and selling 
of anthracite coal is familiar with the physical and commercial features 
of the business. 

The operators offer the foregoing with the firm conviction that 
the terms are fair to the employes and necessary to the industry. The 
periodical adjustment proposed provides for collective bargaining in 
the first instance, and resorts to arbitration only in case collective 
bargaining fails. 

The continuation of the Anthracite Board of Conciliation will 
provide a satisfactory method of settling any disputes that may arise 
within the period of the agreement. 

A form of contract embodying in detail the proposals contained 
herein is submitted herewith. 

S. D. WARRINER 
W. J. RICHARDS 
W. L. CONNELL 
W. W. INGLIS 

Representing Anthracite Operators. 

FORM OF PROPOSED CONTRACT 

THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of 1922, between 

Districts 1, 7 and 9, United Mine Workers of America, parties of the first 
part, and the Anthracite Operators, parties of the second part, covering 
wages and conditions of employment in the Anthracite coal fields of Penn- 
sylvania, WITNESSETH: 

The terms and provisions of the award of the Anthracite Coal Strike 
Commission and the subsequent agreements made in modification thereof or 
supplemental thereto, as well as the terms and provisions of the award of 
the United States Anthracite Coal Commission, and the rulings and decisions 
of the Board of Conciliation, are hereby ratified, confirmed and continued for 
a further period of five years, ending March 31, 1927, except in the follow- 
ing particulars, to wit: 

(a) The contract rates at each colliery shall be decreased 18% below 
the rates effective March 31, 1922, as established under the agreement of 
September 2, 1920. 

[20] 



(b) The rates paid consideration miners and day machine miners shall 
be decreased 18% below the rates effective March 31, 1922, as established 
under the agreement of September 2, 1920. 

(c) The rates paid contract miners' laborers shall be decreased $1.20 
per shift below the rates effective March 31, 1922, as established under the 
agreement of September 2, 1920; it being understood that there is to be a 
reduction of 18% in that portion of the laborer's rate paid by the miner and 
that the difference between said reduction and $1.20 per shift is to be the 
decrease in that portion of the laborer's rate paid by the operator under 
said agreement of September 2, 1920. 

(d) The rates paid consideration miners' laborers and day machine 
miners' laborers shall be decreased $1.20 per shift below the rates effective 
March 31, 1922, as established under the agreement of September 2, 1920. 

(e) The rates paid outside and inside company men, receiving $4.20 
or more per day or per shift, under the agreement of September 2, 1920, 
shall be decreased $1.20 per day or per shift below the rates effective March 
31, 1922, as established under said agreement of September 2, 1920. 

(f) The rates paid outside and inside employes receiving less than 
$4.20 per day under the agreement of September 2, 1920, shall be decreased 
72 cents per day below the rates effective March 31, 1922, as established 
under said agreement of September 2, 1920. 

(g) Monthly men coming under the agreement of September 2, 1920, 
shall be decreased $26.00 per month below the rates effective March 31, 1922, 
as established under said agreement of September 2, 1920. 

The wage rates thus established shall be paid during the year ending 
March 31, 1923. On the first day of February, 1923, and on the first day 
of February of each year thereafter up to and including the first day of 
February, 1926, a joint committee of Anthracite operators and Anthracite 
mine workers shall meet to adjust wages and shall determine the wage rates 
to be paid during the year beginning on the following first day of April, 
basing their adjustment on the following factors, to wit: 

(1) Changes in the purchasing value of the wage earner's dollar within 
each year as determined in the Anthracite region and surrounding territory 
by recognized standard authorities. 

(2) Opportunity for employment offered by the industry. 

(3) Wages and earnings in other basic industries under similar living 
conditions for corresponding service. 

(4) The general economic situation. 

In case no agreement shall have been reached by March 1, in any year, 
the determination of proper wage rates shall be referred to a commission 
to be composed of five persons to be selected by the Presiding Judge of the 
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Judicial Circuit, the 
personnel of the commission to be as follows: 

(1) A mining engineer and geologist, familiar with mining conditions 
and coal production, but not in any way connected with coal mining prop- 
erties, either Anthracite or Bituminous. 

(2) An economist of established reputation who has not been employed 
heretofore by either party. 

(3) A judge of the United States Court for the Eastern district of 
Pennsylvania. 

(4) A man who has been affiliated with and is representative of the 
labor movement in the Anthracite field. 

(5) A man who by active participation in the mining and selling of 
Anthracite coal is familiar with the physical and commercial features of the 
business. 

It is understood and agreed that said commission shall determine wage 
rates for a period of one year, beginning April 1, and that its decision shall 
be final and binding on both parties; and it is further agreed that, if said 
commission shall be delayed in its finding beyond April 1, in any year, there 
will be no strike or suspension of operations and that the decision of the 
commission, when rendered, shall be retroactive to April 1. 

[21] 



Arbitration Proposals Rejected 
by Miners 

On May 20, Vice President Murray, of the United Mine Workers,, 
forecast the rejection of the operators' proposals in a statement cover- 
ing the same ground as the statement of the miners' representatives in 
connection with the investigation resolution of May 3. 

On May 25, formal rejection was made by the miners' representa- 
tives. 

The view of the operators on the attitude taken was expressed by 
Mr. Warriner in the following statement made May 26: 

The mine workers' reply is disappointing in that it completely ignores 
facts and so persistently clings to misconceptions of real conditions. The 
representatives of the miners apparently think that this is an occasion for 
an exchange of claims and counter claims. In our opinion it is nothing of 
the kind. 

The proposition we make is most fair in that it maintains purchasing 
power of wages as established by the President's Commission two years ago. 
It more than meets the increase in the cost of living since 1914. We there- 
fore had reason to assume that it would receive careful consideration and 
afford a basis on which it would be possible to reach an agreement by collec- 
tive bargaining. Instead, the answer is a flat refusal even to discuss our 
proposition and a renewed insistence on the miners' original demands. 

We have stated from the outset and repeat that the granting of these 
demands is an impossibility and that a wage reduction is imperative. Our 
attitude in this respect is unchanged. 

Neither side of the controversy will get anywhere by self-illusion as to 
facts. That, it seems to us, is what the miners' representatives are doing. 
They have attempted to throw around the controversy a smoke screen of 
alleged excessive freight rates, excessive profits, and so forth, in the hope 
that the public mind might be diverted from the real issue, which is ex- 
cessive wages. As indicating the nature of the miners' reply, their repre- 
sentatives suggested that freight rates to tidewater might be reduced by 
$2.63 per ton. The total freight rate at present is $2.66, so that the miners' 
proposal would cut the freight rate from $2.66 to 3 cents per ton. The 
mere statement of this disposes of it. 

Even the alleged connection between railroad companies and coal com- 
panies, although it is a thing of the past, is dragged forth as a reason why 
anthracite miners should retain wages above the war-time peak. 

Further, we are asked to consider the profit in the wholesale and retail 
trade, matters over which neither we nor the miners have any control. We 
are told that the wage reduction would make little difference in the price, 
notwithstanding that 70 percent of mine cost is labor and it is the mine cost 
with which we and the miners must concern ourselves. We are told that 
present wages are inadequate, when figures show that the average annual 
earnings in the industry are far above those in any other basic industry. 

Our plan for a five-year contract with yearly adjustments as to wages 
is refused because it is alleged that it would destroy collective bargaining, 
although it is expressly provided that arbitration should not be resorted to 

[22] 



unless collective bargaining had failed. The fact that this plan would have 
prevented constant suspension of mining and therefore have been a benefit 
to the entire industry and to the public is ignored. 

In a word, our offer is rejected, and in its place are reiterated the 
original demands. 

The proposal of the operators was submitted after most careful study 
and analysis of the situation. It is not subject to change unless it can be 
shown that it was wrong in its premises and conclusions. The miners' reply 
does not attempt to challenge our statement of the facts. We cannot grant 
an increase in wages; we cannot agree to a maintenance of present wages — 
we will insist on a reduction approximating that laid down in our offer. Any 
other course would simply result in inestimable hardships to the industry 
and to those it employs. 



Proposal of Commission to be 
Appointed by the President 

Adjournment of the conference was then taken until June 2, when 
the operators proposed breaking the deadlock by putting all questions 
at issue into the hands of a commission to be named by the President 
of the United States. The formal proposal, as addressed to repre- 
sentatives of the miners, was as follows : 

New York, June 2, 1922. 

You have stated to us, supplementing your letter of May 25th, that 
further negotiations between us would be fruitless, unless we were willing 
favorably to consider your demands for a large increase of wages — the 
unreasonableness of which we have endeavored to show you. You have 
refused at the same time even to discuss our counter proposals. 

In view of these facts we are faced with the alternative of either allow- 
ing the present suspension of operations to continue indefinitely, or finding 
a method of settling our differences othe'r than by direct negotiation. 

We fully realize our responsibilities to all concerned, and we have en- 
deavored in every reasonable way to settle the difference between us by 
honest argument in accordance with the directions of the joint conference of 
operators and miners. 

We deeply regret the failure to agree. We also deeply deplore the 
present suspension of operations, which you ordered without previous notice 
to us at the very outset of negotiations, and which is bringing distress to 
those dependent upon the industry. 

This condition must not be allowed to continue if there is any feasible 
means of preventing it. It is the plain duty of both of us to find such a 
means. 

In view, therefore, of the situation which now exists, we propose that 
the President of the United States be requested to appoint a Commission or 
Tribunal to ascertain and consider all the facts and determine the questions 
concerning wages and conditions of employment at issue between us; said 
Commission or Tribunal to find a practical method by which prompt opera- 
tion of the mines may be resumed pending its ultimate decision, and also 
to seek and recommend a method by which future suspensions or strikes 
may be, so far as possible, avoided. 

[ 23 ] 



In behalf of the anthracite operators whom we represent and for whom 
we speak, we herewith agree to abide by and faithfully carry out the decision 
or award of the Commission or Tribunal so to be appointed by the President 
of the United States. 

S. D. W ARRESTER 
W. J. RICHARDS 
W. L. COXXELL 
W. W. IXGLI3 

Representing Anthracite Operators. 



Discussion in Committee 

Following the presentation of this arbitration proposal, the fol- 
lowing discussion was held in the joint sub-committee session between 
Mr. Warriner and Mr. Connell on behalf of the anthracite operators, 
and Vice President Philip Murray, of the international organization, 
and President Thomas Kennedy, of District Xo. 7, on behalf of the 
United Mine Workers : 

Me. Mueeay: I would like to know the real basis of 
submission upon which your committee would be willing to agree. 
T".:e mine workers' committee would like to know if your com- 
mittee would be willing to agree to have any commission that 
might be appointed by the President — to have the power of 
any Commission that might be appointed by the President of the 
United States — so restricted that it would prevent the possibility of 
a wage revision downward from the present basis. Would you be 
willing to agree to have the power of any commission that may be 
appointed by the President of the United States so restricted as to 
prevent the possibility of a wage revision downward from the present 
basis? 

Me. Waeeixee : I think our statement is very clear and distinct 
what we are willing to do. We are willing to have the President of the 
United States name such commission as he may see fit to appoint to be 
instructed by him as to their powers ; we are willing to abide by the 
award without any restriction. I am perfectly willing to leave every- 
thing to the President. 

Me. Mueeay: Of course, there are certain fundamentals con- 
nected with the situation that make it necessary that the mine workers 
should know just how your minds operate upon those more important 
questions, and merely for our information we are particularly anxious 
to know just what your opinion would be regarding the possibility of 
anv understanding being arrived at between both committees here that 

[ 24 ] 



would prevent the possibility of the commission revising the present 
scale downwards. 

Mr. Warriner: When we leave the matter in the hands of a 
third party we place ourselves in the hands of that third party. 

Mr. Connell: Mr. Murray wants us to agree that the present 
rate of wages shall be the stop downwards. 

Mr. Murray: Yes, sir. 

Mr. Warriner: We can't agree to anything like that after we 
place the matter in the hands of the President of the United States ; 
all we can do is to agree to abide by the result, and that we are willing 
to do. 

Mr. Murray: Now there is another point upon which I would 
like to inquire, and I assume that you will give about the same answer, 
but I somehow or other feel like asking it, and that is this : Is there a 
possibility of an agreement being arrived at between both committees 
that would permit a complete investigation by any commission that 
may be set up by the President, of the profits, transportation charges, 
methods of distribution, etc. 

Mr. Warriner: My answer is practically the same as to the 
other question. We are willing to put our case in the hands of the 
President of the United States ; "we propose that the President of the 
United States be requested to appoint a Commission or Tribunal to 
ascertain and consider all the facts and determine the questions con- 
cerning wages and conditions of employment at issue between us." I 
can't say anything further than that. 

Mr. Murray : Of course your understanding and ours may differ 
upon what facts should be submitted. Two years ago we had a com- 
mission and the mine workers submitted exhibits upon profits, etc., and 
the operators objected very strenuously to their introduction, and, in 
fact, got the Chairman to prevent their introduction. 

Mr. Warriner: If there is anything introduced by you that we 
do not think proper, we will argue against it, and if overruled we will 
abide by the decision of the President or his commission, and if there 
is anything we introduce you do not think proper you will have the 
same privilege. 

Mr. Kennedy: Do I understand from your document you leave 
the terms of submission practically up to the President ; do I under- 
stand by that that you would go along with any terms named by the 
President in appointing the commission? 

Mr. Warriner: Any terms that may be fixed by the President 
in accordance with our submission. 

[25] 



Miners' Leaders Continue Obdurate 

At the conclusion of this meeting, the joint sub-committee, which 
had met every week since its appointment in March, adjourned sub- 
ject to the call of the secretary. 

Informal statements, appearing in the daily press and purporting 
to give the views of different representatives of the mine workers, indi- 
cated that the operators' proposal for a Presidential Commission and 
complete arbitration was not acceptable to union leaders. Meanwhile, 
the General Scale Committee of the United Mine Workers in the an- 
thracite districts was summoned to meet in Hazleton, to discuss a 
formal reply. 

This reply was presented at a meeting of the joint sub-committee 
called for June 14 in Xew York. It was a rejection of the arbitra- 
tion plan and a proposal from the union to join with the operators in 
arranging a settlement on these conditions : 

"First, that you accept our requests for (1) an actual eight-hour 
day for day men in the industry, and (2) for complete union recogni- 
tion (by this is meant the closed shop and check-off), and 

"Second, that existing rates of pay be taken as the starting point 
for future deliberation. This, together with a discussion of the other 
demands of the Shamokin convention, we hope may result in prompt 
agreement." 

The response of the operators was prompt, being given in the 
following terms the same afternoon: 

It is evident from your reply to our offer of unrestricted arbitration 
that you are not willing further to negotiate with us nor to submit the 
matters in controversy to a tribunal appointed by the President unless the 
principal question to be considered, namely, wages, is only to be considered by 
revision upward. 

It would have been just as reasonable if, in making our arbitration 
proposal, we had stipulated that only a downward adjustment of wages should 
be considered. 

You make the further stipulation that to the recognition heretofore 
accorded your union, shall be added the closed shop and the check-off. 

We cannot agree to the restrictions and limitation you propose. 

Our proposal that a tribunal to be appointed by the President should 
"ascertain and consider all the facts and determine the questions covering 
wages and conditions of employment at issue between us" contains no 
restrictions or qualifications. The power of the tribunal should not be 
limited by the various reservations you make. Arbitration confined in its 
scope and limited to action in one direction only, regardless of facts, is no 
arbitration. 

[ 26 ] 



With a full realization of our responsibility to the public and with a 
sincere desire to secure a settlement of our controversy, we have offered a 
proposal of arbitration, the character and fairness of which cannot be reason- 
ably questioned. 

We can go no further. 

We stand on this offer of arbitration. If you refuse it, and continue the 
present suspension or carry out your threat of calling a strike, the responsi- 
bility is yours. 

(Signed) S. D. WARRINER 
W. J. RICHARDS 
W. L. CONNELL 
W. W. INGLIS 

Representing Anthracite Operators. 

The sub-committee then adjourned, subject to call from either 
side. Meanwhile the union had been conducting a vote on the question 
of converting the "suspension" into a strike, effective July 1. 

Intervention by the President 
of the United States 

Proposal of Arbitration Accepted by Operators — Rejected by 

Miners 

The vote of the organized miners was reported as having been 
strongly in favor of allowing the union officers to convert the "sus- 
pension" into a strike, but it was decided not to call out the maintenance 
men, so that the practical situation in the region did not change. 
There was general inaction for two weeks, when President Harding 
intervened, inviting representatives of the anthracite operators, the 
bituminous operators and the striking mine workers to a White House 
conference held July 1. 

The President recommended that the parties to the coal disputes 
resume conferences, preferably in executive session, to see if some basis 
of agreement could be reached. The anthracite joint sub-committee 
accordingly met in Washington that day, and held adjourned meetings 
July 6 and July 7. Secretary Fall represented the Government at the 
July 6 meeting, and Secretary Davis attended the meeting on July 7. 

Failure to reach any agreement, in either the anthracite or bitu- 
minous coal strikes, led the President, on July 10, to make the follow- 
ing proposal to the operators and miners in general : 

1. That the mine workers return to work at once on the wage 
scales in force March 31, 1922, the scales to continue until 
August 10, 1922. 

[27] 



2. A coal commission to be formed at once, to consist of three 
members chosen by the mine workers, three by the opera- 
tors, and five by the President, with its decisions to be 
final. 

3. The commission to determine, if possible, within 30 days 
from July 10, a temporary basic wage scale to be effective 
until March 1, 1923. 

4. The commission to investigate every phase of the coal in- 
dustry, and every cost of production and transportation, 
the President agreeing to ask Congress for full authority. 
The report of the Commission to include recommendations 
looking to lasting peace in the industry, the elimination of 
waste due to intermittency, and the establishment of de- 
pendable fuel supplies. 

President Harding requested that all parties reply by the evening 
of July 10, but the union officers represented that the union's policy 
committee would have to be consulted, and the union meeting was 
therefore delayed until July 15. When the policy committee did meet 
it rejected the suggestion for both the anthracite and bituminous 
strikers. 

The anthracite operators, however, had previously accepted in 
the following letter: 

Washington, D. C, July 12, 1922. 
To the President 
The White House 
Dear Mr. President: 

On behalf of the anthracite operators, we beg to make the following 
reply to the proposal of arbitration which you submitted to us on July 10th: 

We are deeply appreciative of your effort to* end the present suspen- 
sion of anthracite production, and desire to cooperate with you to the fullest 
extent in this endeavor. 

After continued conferences with the representatives of the mine workers 
from March 15th to June 2nd, it appeared that no agreement satisfactory 
to both sides could be reached. 

The operators then proposed "that the President of the United States 
be requested to appoint a Commission or Tribunal to ascertain and consider 
all the facts and determine the question concerning wages and conditions of 
employment at issue between us; said Commission or Tribunal to find a 
practical method by which prompt operation of the mines may be resumed 
pending its ultimate decision, and also to seek and recommend a method 
by which future suspensions or strikes may be, so far as possible, avoided." 

The anthracite operators further agreed that all such matters as the 
President might determine were pertinent to the questions in controversy 
concerning wages and conditions of employment should be considered by 
the Commission or Tribunal so to be appointed, and agreed to abide by and 
faithfully to carry out its decision or award. 

[28 ] 



We are, therefore, committed to arbitration, and are entirely in sym- 
pathy with the principle of the method of settlement which you have 
proposed. 

We believe, however, that certain amplifications of your proposal are 
desirable to the end that the settlement shall be speedily reached, shall be 
permanent in character, and shall be binding upon both sides of the con- 
troversy. 

Throughout the fruitless negotiations which have been held with the 
mine workers, the anthracite operators have had two primary objects in 
view: 

First, an agreement on a wage scale which while adequate should at 
the same time afford the steady employment which the anthracite mine 
workers have enjoyed in the past and which only regular demand for the 
product can assure. It has been the firm conviction of the anthracite oper- 
ators that this is economically possible only by such adjustment of these 
wages as would reduce the cost of producing anthracite in line with adjust- 
ments which have taken place with respect to other commodities. 

Second, that any agreement reached should be durable and at the 
same time provide reasonable means of wage adjustment from time to time 
to meet the changing economic conditions of the country. The object sought 
was prevention of the periodical disturbance of the public and of industry 
generally by the recurring interruptions to production. 

We feel confident of your desire to further these objects in a manner 
fair to all concerned. 

In order that this may be accomplished we respectfully make the fol- 
lowing suggestions: 

First — Because of the wide difference in the problems that confront 
the anthracite and the bituminous industries, it is practically impossible for 
one commission to study and decide the questions in controversy within a 
reasonable period of time. Of necessity they must be studied separately if 
the prompt adjudication that all interests desire is to be obtained. 

The anthracite business has no problem of over-development and under- 
employment. It is already stabilized and has maintained full-time employ- 
ment of the mine workers. Its mining conditions are entirely different from 
those in the bituminous field, and it is a manufacturing as well as a mining 
industry. Its product is mainly a domestic, not a manufacturing fuel. 

It has been consistently held not only by the operators but also by the 
mine workers that the anthracite industry with respect to agreements affect- 
ing wages and working conditions is and should be absolutely autonomous. 

Because of these conditions, we feel that it is necessary for a separate 
Commission to be designated by yourself to consider our problems, and we 
take the liberty of suggesting that such Commission should be, so far as 
possible, non-partisan, not more than one member representing the operators 
and one the miners, and not less than three to be appointed by yourself as 
representative of the public. 

Second — The anthracite operators cannot escape the conviction that the 
reestablishment of the scale of wages in effect from April 1, 1920, to March 
31, 1922, even as a temporary expedient, will embarrass rather than assist 
the effort to restore normal conditions. 

The demand from the public for decreased prices of anthracite is im- 
perative. Anthracite is the only essential commodity which has not been 
deflated in price, and the continuance of present prices will undoubtedly 
Impede the distribution of the product, which should be prompt and un- 
interrupted on the resumption of mining. 

[ 29 ] 



We nevertheless agree to your proposal that, pending a permanent 
scale, the "mine workers are to return to work on the scale of wages which 
expired last March." 

It will be evident to you, however, that it will not be possible for the 
anthracite operators to contract for the disposition of their product while 
uncertain as to costs of production. We are therefore confident that it is 
necessary to the success of your plan, and in conformity with your intent, 
that it shall be made mandatory upon the Commission first to determine the 
wage scale to be effective until March, 1923, and that its decision in this 
regard shall be handed down on or before August 10th. 

Our agreements have always expired with the end of the coal year, 
March 31st, and we suggest that this date be adopted for the expiration of 
the temporary wage scale. 

Third — We respectfully submit that a recurrence of the present un- 
fortunate situation will not be prevented by the establishment of only a 
temporary wage scale expiring in March, 1923. A renewal of the present 
controversy at that time would be deplorable. 

It is our understanding that the Commission shall be empowered and 
directed not only to determine temporary wages and working conditions, 
but shall also be empowered and directed to devise a method by which 
periodical disturbances may be avoided, and by which wages and working 
conditions may be automatically adjusted, by negotiation if possible, and 
if not by such machinery as the Commission shall set up; and that its 
decisions in this regard shall be binding on both parties. 

We agree to abide without reservation or qualification by the findings 
of a Commission so to be appointed and empowered. 

It is our belief that these suggestions are within the intent and spirit 
of your general plan, and that their adoption is necessary to bring about 
what you aim to achieve, namely, "the establishment and maintenance of 
industrial peace in the coal industry." 

Very respectfully, 

S. D. WARRINER 
W. J. RICHARDS 
W. L. CONNELL 
W. W. INGLIS 

Representing Anthracite Operators. 

In a supplemental letter dated July 15, President Harding pre- 
sented a clarification of some points, relating to the bituminous in- 
dustry, which were in doubt under varying constructions of his original 
letter, and in this second communication he explicitly said that if the 
operators and mine workers should agree to it, there would be a separate 
Commission for the anthracite industry. 

But on the same day that he issued this letter, the mine workers 
notified him that "the representatives of the United Mine Workers 
are compelled to withhold their acceptance of the arbitration proposal 
submitted by you." 

President Harding, in a public statement, said that the mine 
workers and a minority of operators (all from bituminous fields) had 

[ 30 ] 



brought about a situation where the good offices of the Government 
were made unavailing, and he again drew attention to the fact that 
freedom of action on the part of parties to the controversy did not 
measure in importance with the public welfare and the national security. 
Meanwhile, the anthracite controversy remained in a deadlock. 

Attempted Mediation by Mayors of 
Anthracite Communities 

Another effort at intervention was then made by a committee of 
anthracite mayors, who talked with President Harding and with John 
L. Lewis, president of the miners' union before meeting with a committee 
of anthracite operators in Philadelphia, August 1. Those attending 
the Philadelphia meeting were Mayor J. F. Durkan, Scranton ; Mayor 
Dan Hart, Wilkes-Barre ; Mayor T. J. Loftus, Carbondale; Mayop 
P. R. Brown, Pittston ; Mayor J. G. Harvey, Hazleton ; Mayor J. O. 
Bearstler, Pottsville; and the following representatives of the anthra- 
cite operators : Messrs. S. D. Warriner, W. J. Richards, W. W. Inglis, 
W. L. Connell and T. M. Dodson. The official report of this meeting, 
issued by the operators' committee, said : 

"At a meeting arranged today by the mayors of the six principal 
anthracite cities, we were advised by the mayors that in the conference 
held by them with President John L. Lewis, he stated to them that he 
would be glad to meet the anthracite operators to negotiate by direct 
conference an adjustment of the present controversy. 

"We advised the mayors that the operators' negotiating com- 
mittee are ready and willing at this time to reopen meetings, with the 
committee representing our employes either to continue negotiations for 
a new wage scale by direct conference or to refer the matter to unre- 
stricted arbitration in accordance with the proposal made by the 
operators to representatives of our employes on June 2. 

"The anthracite controversy has always been settled independently 
of the bituminous situation. Our desire is that a settlement shall be 
reached promptly so that operations may be speedily resumed." 

As a meeting of bituminous operators and representatives of the 
union had been called for Cleveland, August 7, union officers took the 
position that it would be impossible to resume the anthracite meetings 
until the bituminous conference was over. 

On August 10, Messrs. S. D. Warriner and W. J. Richards, 
accompanied by Senator Pepper, were received at the White House 
by President Harding, Secretary Hoover being present at the inter- 

[31] 



view. The President was informed that there was a strong genera- 
feeling in favor of a quack settlement of the anthracite strike, and that 

anthracite workers, employers and consumers were being used merely 
to add force to manoeuvres in the bituminous controversy. The desir- 
ability of separate consideration and settlement of anthracite problems, 
in case the Government took any action, was emphasized, but specific 
action on the part of the President was not discussed. 

In the interim the following correspondence had been exchanged 
between representatives of the anthracite operators and the mayors 
of anthracite cities: 

CITY OF SCRANTON 
PENNSYLVANIA 

August 3, 1922. 

S. D. Warrmer, President 
Lafayette Building 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

My dear Mr. Warriner: 

I am just after writing Mr. John L, Lewis, President of the United 
Mine Workers to the effect that it is our thought that it might have been 
better if a meeting of the Anthraeie Operators and the representatives of 
the United Mine Workers might have been held this week. However, in 
his judgment he thought better to defer it on account of their previously 
arranged meeting with the bituminous operators in Cleveland on Monday. 
While it might be assumed that our work was through when both sides 
agreed to meet and confer, we feel obligated to keep up our interest until 
such time as a definite date for the meeting is decided upon. In my letter 
to Mr. Lewis I have suggested August 10th as a possible date for the con- 
ference. Would this be agreeable to your people? 

I might add that public opinion as I get it up here is free in its com- 
mendation of the willingness manifested by both sides to sit in with settle- 
ment in view. 

Very truly yours, 

JOHN DUE KAN. 

(TELEGRAM) 

Philadelphia, August 7, 1922. 

Hon John F. Durkan.. Ma 7 
Scranton, Pa. 

There has never been a time since our negotiations opened when we 
have not been glad to meet the miners with the object of settling our con- 
troversy and at this time we are glad and ready to meet them either on 

August tenth as you suggest or at any earlier date that we can arrange. 

S. D. WARRINER 

On the day the above telegTam was sent the Scranton Board of 
Trade, at a special meeting, passed resolutions "that if a direci and 
immediate settlement is not arrived at. arbitration should be at once 
invoked to solve the anthracite problem, and that in the meantime 

[ 32 ] 



operators and miners should agree to resume mining operations and 
expedite the production of coal which the people need and have the 
right to demand." The resolutions further declared that "the prin- 
ciple of arbitration is conceded throughout the world to be the fairest 
plan for the settlement of all disputes." 

Similar resolutions were adopted by business men elsewhere in the 
region, and were acknowledged by Mr. Warriner, who said in a letter 
to the Scranton Board of Trade, August 11 : 

"On behalf of the operators, I beg to express to you our complete 
endorsement of the principles enunciated in your resolutions, and to 
assure you that we are taking every possible step in our power to bring 
about a conclusion of the present suspension of operations in the anthra- 
cite field. 

"Your resolutions are eminently sound in principle, in that if 
there should be a continued failure to agree, the principle of arbitration 
should be at once invoked. 

"I beg to call your attention that the anthracite operators on 
June 2 made to the anthracite miners an offer of unrestricted arbitra- 
tion, and that later the anthracite operators unconditionally accepted 
the proposition of arbitration as made by the President of the United 
States. It is self-evident that if two parties cannot agree, the ques- 
tions at issue must be left to the judgment of a third party; and I beg 
to express to you the strong conviction that, with the rapidly crystal- 
lizing sentiment such as you express in favor of a fair, complete and 
constructive arbitration, all parties to the present deplorable con- 
troversy should be brought to an acceptance of this method of settle- 
ment. 

"In all steps which you may take toward this end, you may be 
assured of our hearty cooperation." 

The Scranton Board of Trade then got in touch with the union 
officers, and this wire correspondence passed: 

Scranton, Pa., August 10, 1922. 
John L. Lewis, President 
United Mine Workers of America 
Miners' Conference, Hollenden Hotel, 
Cleveland, Ohio 

There is already an overwhelming sentiment in this region in favor 
of a resumption of anthracite mining. The feeling is that after almost 
five months' suspension the anthracite miners should be permitted to com- 
pose their own differences independent of the bituminous field. This thought 
is constantly voiced by working men, business men and all elements of this 
community which is suffering from a prolongation of the strike situation, 
which appears easily susceptible of adjustment. Cannot something be done 
at once? 

SCRANTON BOARD OF TRADE 

[ 33 ] 



-:i:i :: Trair 



Oevelamd, Ohio, August 11, 1922. 



©f United Mime Workers are 
: . : _~ in pus negotiations, 
We have mmderstood altitude of 



1.7""— & 7:"_: ~-'r 
:_t_i i-:::::::t 7_rr: :i :t_s 
a ... : e : : : z~ :: :ir : : z. z: a 77 
:.r ::-:i:: :-5 :: :••= ::i: liey 

If tikis Is mot mow true and 

to so imto direct megotia- 

mmsis of the old wage scale and 

-..'. :•. r.i i ; a::ei: a joint 

desagmated by the amthraeate operators' representa- 

JOHN L. LEWIS 



Renewed Efforts of President Harding 

to Settle Controversy Aided by Senator 

Pepper Results in Failure 

On Satanlm y, August 12, President Harding again intervened 
through the mediiim of the following" letter, addressed to Senator 



H- 



StI2.::: 



I ami Hold that Mr. 1 

— -M 'It iz'.'i: i : :z~ : : ~r. 

:j'^rs:.:r= —ill ":■•= a: : :.ir 
: : i.'.a.l in - : : z~. : i :: ; " 



■ 1 r 5 - 



-7_r ■'• i_::.e House 
-..::::: i-grLSl 12 1922. 

i winingmess to confr7 a: :ir 

— 1:.t im :.: :: -: 1 suggest 
t directly eomcermed that the 

?: Li zzrj z::zz-:.7 >~zd. nim 
:«r :.al".e: ":j iin a: e z :i time 

:: :i- :zi:i.i;: :«";-::::: 

• -; = • if ~i :z zzb til r -1.5 5 : 2 - 

:e?:e: t"r_r: iri:i: s siirit of 

H £ :ai7 : 1 5 : s _: : r_ ~:.::'i :: 

:::: I'.C 7 1 t ~ .5 stipulates for 
i m t a : : - : :.a.i : e : 7 : i ? oper- 

li rrr::::: Mt.: llt itation 
-t: : ": "1£t ::t It: lack at 
:~ -'** uad an opportunity to 
:- Si v 1: : kin proposals, I am 
E ;::;•-: ::: : : 1 5 : : r 7 a :.. : 1 a : 
:i::zt:: ii ai-raice. I am 
rs ii: ~ : 1 - 7 - - . : 1 a 5 . t_ : t 7 - 

I an si7t :.::: t_t::1t7 —ill 
Eaar adjmstsaent 
:- — :11 :iii- line ;l :>_- in- 



1: 



any further delay, we shall be in danger of nothing short of nation-wide 
disaster. 

As to place, I suppose that there may be advantages in meeting some- 
where in the anthracite region rather than in Washington. 

The mayors of several of the important cities in that region have 
assured me of an intense public sentiment among their people in favor of 
prompt settlement. It may be that in such an atmosphere the prospect of 
quickly reaching a fair adjustment would be bright. This, of course, is a 
point to be determined by those who issue the invitation. 

Sincerely yours, 

WARREN G. HARDING 
Hon. George Wharton Pepper 
Senator from Pennsylvania 
United States Senate 
Washington, D. C. 

Senator Pepper came to Philadelphia at once and called a meeting 
at his residence, those attending being Senator Pepper, Governor 
Sproul, William A. Glasgow, Esq., counsel for the United Mine Workers 
of America; and Messrs. S. D. Warriner and W. J. Richards, repre- 
senting the anthracite operators. In accordance with the request of 
the President, a telegram was sent Sunday night to Mr. Lewis, the 
wire correspondence being: 

Philadelphia, August 13, 1922. 
John L. Lewis 
Hollenden Hotel, Cleveland, Ohio 

On behalf of the anthracite operators I extend to you a cordial invita- 
tion to meet us in conference with a view to an early resumption of produc- 
tion in the anthracite field. I suggest Philadelphia as a suitable place for 
conference and August 16th as a convenient time. 

Our conception of the conference is that we should meet for the friendly 
discussion of the whole situation, including such specific proposals as either 
of us may desire to submit. We are glad, however, to express in advance 
our confident expectation that we can devise in conference a method of wage 
adjustment such that upon our agreeing to it, we shall be able then to take 
the men back at the old wage scale until such adjustment actually takes 
place. 

We are moved to send this invitation not merely by our own desires but 
because the President of the United States has communicated through Sena- 
tor Pepper an expression both of his wish that we should do so and of his 
hope that you will accept. Let me assure you that our invitation is sent 
without any underlying reservations or conditions and in full assurance that 
when we meet we can work out a result at once protective of the public inter- 
est and satisfactory to the mine workers. We bespeak your acceptance in the 
same spirit. An early telegraphic reply will be appreciated. 

S. D. WARRINER 



Cleveland, 0., August 14, 1922 
S. D. Warriner 
Chairman Policies Committee Anthracite Operators, Philadelphia 

On behalf of the United Mine Workers as represented in the anthracite 
field I am most pleased to accept the cordial invitation which you have ex- 

[ 35 ] 



tended to meet with the anthracite operators in Philadelphia on Wednesday, 
August sixteenth. The broad premise upon which you have based your invi- 
tation is commendable and augurs well for the success of the conference. I 
can assure you the representatives of the United Mine Workers will approach 
the conference in the same broad spirit with the keen determination to effec- 
tuate an adjustment mutually satisfactory to the public, the operators and 
the miners. I am sure that such a settlement will be a tremendous aid to 
our nation and its citizens in relieving public embarrassment and in restoring 
mutual confidence and respect. 

JOHN L. LEWIS 

On August 15, Mr. Lewis wired that he would be unavoidably 
delayed, and suggested that the proposed meeting be set for Thurs- 
day afternoon, August 17, which was agreed to. 

Meetings were held August 17, August 18, August 19, August 21 
and August 22 in the offices of the Lehigh Coal & Navigation Com- 
pany, the operators' representatives being the same as on the original 
joint sub-committee which conducted the fruitless negotiations in New 
York. The union was represented by the three district presidents of 
the union in the anthracite region, International President John L. 
Lewis and International Vice-President Philip Murray. 

From the start the attitude of the union representatives was one 
of unalterable opposition to arbitration in any form. This was carried 
to the extent that they refused to agree to the appointment of an im- 
partial fact-finding commission with no powers except to determine 
and publish the facts and to make recommendations which either side 
should be free to reject, and the meetings ended August 22. The 
course of the negotiations was immediately made clear in the following 
public statement made by Mr. Warriner right after adjournment: 



Mr. Warriner's Statement of 
August 22, 1922 

Our conferences with the representatives of the anthracite miners which 
began on August 17, were brought about in response to the request of the 
President of the United States, communicated to us by Senator Pepper. The 
hope was expressed by the President that there might now be found some 
"fair basis" on which the suspension of operations in the anthracite fields 
might be terminated. 

In the proposals we have made to the miners' representatives in the 
course of the conference, we have had in mind not merely the bringing about 
of a resumption of production, although we think that is most important. 
We have endeavored to accomplish this, and at the same time to establish 
a basis looking towards permanent peace and continuous operation in the 
future. 

It was our belief that this could be best secured by a long term contract 

[36] 



with a provision for periodical revision of wages by arbitration, which should 
be binding upon both parties. We were entirely willing to accept as a Board 
of Arbitration a commission or tribunal to be appointed by the President. 

This having been refused by the miners, we proposed to utilize the exist- 
ing and familiar machinery of the Conciliation Board, which in the anthracite 
field has been adjusting disputes between operators and miners satisfactorily 
for the past twenty years. In case the Conciliation Board which is composed 
of equal numbers of operators and miners, should not be able to agree, we 
proposed that the presiding Judge of the United States District Court of 
Appeals for the Third Judicial District should appoint three umpires whose 
decision should be final and binding upon both parties. 

Unfortunately, and in our opinion, unwisely, the representatives of the 
miners rejected this proposal. 

In a further effort to meet their opposition to binding arbitration, how- 
ever impartial, we made the following proposal: 

All mines to resume operation upon the execution of a contract 
extending to March 31, 1923, the wages and working conditions 
which were in effect March 31, 1922. This contract to provide that: 

(a) On January 3, 1923, the Anthracite Board of Conciliation 
shall meet in conference and determine wages and working condi- 
tions in the anthracite field effective for a period of one year begin- 
ning April 1, 1923. On January 3, 1924, the Board shall meet in 
like manner to determine wages and working conditions for a 
period of two years beginning April 1, 1924. 

(b) In case there has been no agreement prior to February 15 
in the years 1923 and 1924, the Presiding Judge of the United 
States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Judicial District shall 
appoint three disinterested citizens of outstanding character and 
ability, who shall sit with the Board to hear the argument and make 
findings with respect to the matters in dispute. These findings 
shall be rendered on or before March 15, shall be recommendatory 
in character, and shall be subject to acceptance or rejection by 
either party within ten days thereafter. 

This proposal, representing the extreme of concession by the operators 
was rejected by the miners' representatives today. We have offered to con- 
sider any practical modification of these plans which would not sacrifice the 
ends sought. The miners' spokesman declined to make any such suggestions. 
They can speak for themselves as to their attitude. To us their plan seems 
to be indefinitely to retain war-time wages regardless of any other considera- 
tions. 

It will be noted that our suggestion embodies the use of the Conciliation 
Board instituted in the anthracite field by the Roosevelt Commission in 1903. 
The Board's personnel includes the three district presidents of the miners' 
organization in the anthracite field in conjunction with three operators. 
Matters in dispute which the Board finds itself unable to adjust are referred 
to an umpire appointed by the Presiding Judge of the Circuit Court. 

Our suggestion only embodied by way of change, therefore, the appoint- 
ment of three umpires instead of one, in order that a matter so important 
as a general contract might receive that impartial consideration necessary 
to a proper acceptance on the part of those interested, including the con- 
sumers of anthracite coal. 

While we realize that the proposal now made may be considered defec- 
tive in that the findings of the umpires are not binding, it is nevertheless 
hoped and believed that the findings arrived at under such circumstances, 

[37] 



would afford the basis for a peaceable and orderly settlement and tend to 
avoid suspensions of mining hereafter. 

The necessity for some method by which recurring periods of idleness 
in our industry may be avoided, in so far as possible, is conceded by all. 
The mutual responsibilities of the operators and the miners demanded the 
most serious consideration and prompt acceptance of this proposal. These 
responsibilities require that the production of anthracite shall be resumed 
at the earliest possible date, and that we shall at the same time remove the 
menace of another suspension next year. 

We are hopeful, in spite of the rejection of our last proposal that wiser 
second thought will bring about its acceptance. Continued opposition on 
the part of the miners to any plan which seeks to avoid another suspension 
carries with it a heavy responsibility. It means that the officials of the 
United Mine Workers assume responsibility for the suffering on the part of 
the public and the miners themselves that may result from further delay in 
resumption of production. It means that rather than agree even to an 
advisory finding as to future wages, the miners' representatives are willing 
to deprive the people of a large section of the United States of essential 
fuel. We cannot believe that this stand will be maintained. If it is there 
can be no question as to where the responsibility lies for the consequences 
that may follow. 

On behalf of the union, President Lewis made the following state- 
ment to the public press the same evening: 

When the representatives of the United Mine Workers accepted the invi- 
tation of the anthracite operators to participate in the joint conference we 
believed that it was their purpose to effectuate a settlement of the anthracite 
strike. We were therefore after entering the conference astonished to find 
that they had resurrected the theory of arbitration and again offered it as a 
condition of settlement. The entire vreek of conference has been taken up 
by discussion of this matter. The position of the United Mine Workers on 
this question is well known and generally recognized. We do not believe the 
principle of collective bargaining should be set aside or substituted by any 
theory of arbitration.. Our position on this question has been repeatedly 
made clear and there is no intent on the part of the United Mine Workers 
to compromise this principle. 

The most recent offer of the anthracite operators made to the conference 
several days ago provides for the so-called voluntary plan of arbitration simi- 
lar to the plan under which the Railway Labor Board operates and identical 
with the principle set forth in the Canadian Industrial Disputes act. The 
public is entirely familiar with the lamentable failure of arbitration as ex- 
emplified by the United States Railway Labor Board and is today suffering 
keen distress because of the blundering failure of this agency to function 
with proper regard for the workers' rights. 

The public is also aware of the breakdown in the Canadian Industrial 
Disputes act as concerns the basic and essential industries of Canada. The 
present turmoil existing in both the northwest and maritime provinces of 
Canada is directly traceable to the failure of this kind of legislation. The 
155,000 miners employed in the anthracite coal fields who have been engaged 
in a bitter struggle for nearly five months have no time or inclination to 
indulge in further experiments of this kind when their powers of observation 
reveal to them the disastrous workings of arbitration elsewhere. 

The mine workers' representatives in the anthracite conference proposed 
the making of a contract until March 31, 1924, and would have given serious 

[38] 



consideration to the making of a longer term contract, thus guaranteeing the 
stability of the industry free from interruption of production and carrying 
insurance to the public that its supply of anthracite would be adequate. Our 
offer in this respect was met with the brutally frank statement of the anthra- 
cite operators that the price of such an agreement must be arbitration of the 
wage scale at stated periods. The mine workers have declined to purchase 
peace at such a cost. 

We have every honorable desire to negotiate an agreement for the 
anthracite industry and in consideration of that purpose have devoted the 
past week in a sincere attempt to accomplish that end. The persistent actions 
of the representatives of the anthracite operators in declining to discuss any 
other question than arbitration seemingly indicates a lack of desire upon 
their part for such settlement. In this respect there is a marked difference 
in the position occupied by the anthracite operators and in the position of 
the bituminous operators who have now largely accepted the provisions of 
the agreement made in the Cleveland interstate conference Where the ques- 
tion of arbitration was totally eliminated. 

The public has been gratified by the adjustment of the bituminous situ- 
ation and would hail with like satisfaction a settlement of the anthracite con- 
troversy. If the anthracite operators now continue to occupy the position 
which makes a settlement of this question impossible they and they alone 
must bear the responsibility before the bar of public opinion. 

Mr. Lewis's statement glossed over some of the fundamental differ- 
ences between the proposals the union accepted at the Cleveland bitu- 
minous conference and those they made, according to his statement, in 
the anthracite meetings in Philadelphia. 

The Cleveland conference determined that the miners should resume 
work on the basis of extending the old wage scale until March 31, 1923. 

At the anthracite conference, Mr. Lewis says, it was demanded 
that the old wage scale should be extended until March 31, 1924. 

The Cleveland conference determined that the bituminous opera- 
tors and mine workers affected should hold a joint conference in 
October, 1922, where a committee representing both sides equally 
should be named to formulate a method of negotiating wage agreements 
effective April 1, 1923, a report to be made to another joint conference 
convening January 3, 1923. 

The Cleveland conference determined that the joint conference of 
October, 1922, should select a Committee of Inquiry, whose personnel 
should be approved by the President of the United States, to make an 
investigation of the bituminous industry, to make such recommenda- 
tions for betterment as it may deem advisable, and to report at the 
joint conference of January, 1923. 

At the anthracite conference, Mr. Lewis rejected the proposal for 
an impartial committee of three to make findings upon matters in dis- 
pute and to submit them, purely as recommendations, subject to ac- 
ceptance or rejection by either side on ten days' notice. 

[39 ] 



Settlement Effected Through Joint 

Action of Senators Pepper and Reed 

Endorsed by President Harding 

Agreement to he in effect until August 31, 1923 

At this juncture a fresh effort was made by Senator George 
Wharton Pepper and Senator David A. Reed to bring about a settle- 
ment, their proposals being embodied in the following letter: 

To August 29, 1922. 

S. D. Warriner, Esquire, Chairman, 

Policy Committee, Anthracite Coal Operators; 

and 
Mr. John L. Lewis, President, 
United Mine Workers of America. 

As Senators representing the Commonwealth in which the anthracite 
coal field lies, we earnestly urge your acceptance of the following proposal: 

1. The contracts in force March 31, 1922, to be extended to August 
31, 1923, or March 31, 1924. 

2. The production of coal to begin at once. 

3. Your organizations to join in a recommendation to Congress that 
legislation be forthwith enacted creating a separate anthracite 
coal commission, with authority to investigate and report 
promptly on every phase of the industry. 

4. The continuance of production after the extension date, to be 
upon such terms as the parties may agree upon in the light of the 
report of the commission. 

(Signed) George Wharton Pepper 
(Signed) David A. Reed 

This letter was laid before a meeting of the General Policies 
Committee held in Philadelphia August 31. It received thoughtful con- 
sideration, but action was deferred to another meeting, called for 
Saturday, September 2, in Philadelphia. Following the meeting of 
August 31, Mr. Warriner made the following statement: 

"We are faced with a demand for the continuation of war wages beyond 
April 1, 1923. In order to bring about an immediate resumption of mining 
we have reluctantly agreed to continue the old wages until next April, but 
we have not felt that we were justified in going further than that. 

"The bituminous miners have gone back to work under the old scale 
until next April. The anthracite producers know of no reason why their 
men should not do the same thing, and want to be entirely satisfied that con- 
ditions warrant a longer period of the old wages for anthracite miners. 

"To continue the war wages beyond next April inevitably carries with it 
a continuation of present prices. The public has protested against buying 
at these prices longer than is absolutely necessary. The adjournment taken 

[40 ] 



today was to enable the operators to canvass the situation and to obtain, if 
possible, the views of others as to conditions which would be fair to all 
parties concerned, not forgetting those who buy the product. 

"If the public necessities for coal and the urgent request of public 
authorities are such as to induce us to continue the old wages beyond April 
1, 1923, this demand must come to us in the form of a public mandate. We 
will conform our action to such a mandate, but no other reason would impel 
us to enter into an agreement which will continue, for longer than the present 
emergency, coal prices to which emphatic objection has already been made." 

To canvass public feeling, the General Policies Committee sent out 
the following telegram, under date of August 31, to mayors of cities in 
anthracite-consuming territory, to editors of prominent papers, to 
chambers of commerce and to boards of trade: 

"Faced by miners' demand for continuation of old wages 
beyond next April, which would mean continuation of present 
prices, the producers of anthracite coal are seeking to find out 
whether the public approves of conceding this demand as a 
means of bringing about the prompt resumption of production 
necessary to secure an adequate supply of fuel for the com- 
ing winter. Our attitude more fully outlined in statement 
printed in today's papers. Shall greatly appreciate telegram 
from you today stating whether your community favors con- 
ceding the demand in view of existing emergency." 

Replies to this telegram, which were prompt and numerous, were 
read before the Policies Committee on Saturday, September 2. They 
were overwhelmingly in favor of securing anthracite production im- 
mediately, even at the cost of maintaining the old prices until August 
31, 1923, through extending the old wage scale to that date. 

Besides these appeals there was one from the President of the 
United States, in the form of the following letter transmitted through 
Senator Pepper: 

The White House 
Washington, D. C. 

September 1, 1922. 

To the Representatives of the Anthracite Operators and Miners: 

The public interest transcends any partisan advantage that you might 
gain by further resistance. I urge you in the name of public welfare to 
accede to the proposal that has been advanced by Senators Pepper and Reed. 

Very truly yours, 

(Signed) Warren G. Harding. 

In accordance with the above expressed wishes, interpreted as 
amounting to a public mandate, the General Policies Committee 
adopted the following preamble and resolutions at the meeting on 

September 2: 

[41] 



Whereas, the anthracite coal producing companies for the past five 
months hare been endeavoring by eTery means in their power to secure a 
downward revision of wages in the interest of the public and the industry 
ill 

Whereas, the enforced period of non-production has created a situation 
into which the United States Government has now intervened in order that 
coal may be produced, and the consumer supplied, and 

Whereas, the President of the United States has urgently requested, 
in the interest and welfare of the public, that anthracite coal should be pro- 

Whereas, Sezi.rrs ?e;;er and Reed on August 29th made a specific 
proposal for the settle— ad ::" all matters in controversy, which proposal 
lis '.ir eziirsenen: :. :lr Preside::: :iere-:re :e :: 

Resolved, that while we are still of the opinion that anthracite wages 
should be reduced, and that even the present emergency does not justify 
the continuation of the old scale, we nevertheless, in conformity with the 
insistent appeals of the President of the United 5:^5 ;he Senators from 
Pennsylvania, and the public, accept the proposal made by Senators Pepper 
i - i ?.ai is : : II :• s 

1. The contracts in force March 31, 1922, to be extended to August 
31, 1923. 

2. The production of coal to begin at once. 

3. The organisations of operators and miners to join in a recom- 
mendation to Congress that legislation be forthwith enacted 
creating a separate anthracite coal commission, with authority 
to investigate and report promptly on every phase of the in- 

4. The continuance of production after the extension date to he 
upon such terms as the parties may agree upon in the light of the 
re-:?: ::' :Jie ::~~ : ==::". 



Resolved, that the sub-committee of the General Policies Committee of 
Anthracite Operators be authorized to enter into an agreement with the offi- 
cials of the United Mine Workers, embodying the proposals above quoted. 



Agreement Ending the Strike 

The General Policies Committee thereupon adjourned, and the 
Negotiations Committee waited upon Senator Pepper in his Phila- 
delphia office. After a conference with the President of the United 
Mine Workers, a joint meeting of the Negotiations Committee was 
arranged for 9 P. M . September 2, in Senator Peppers office. 

As the result of this meeting, an agreement was reached and the 
following contract was signed at 12.10 A. M.. September 3: 

THIS AGREEMENT, made this second day of September, 1922. 
z-'.-zzT. D:s:r:::- 1, 7, and 9, UniTri Mine Workers :: America, Z3.r-.iz5 
of the first part, and the Anthracite Operators, parties of the second 
part, covering wages and conditions of emplovment in the anthracite 
coalfields of Pennsylvania. WITNESSETH:* 

[42 ] 



1. The contracts and working conditions which were opera- 
tive on March 31, 1922, are hereby extended to and includ- 
ing August 31, 1923. 

2. Districts 1, 7, and 9, United Mine Workers of America, 
will forthwith take the necessary steps to enable all em- 
ployes to return to work to the end that production of 
anthracite coal may be resumed. 

3. The parties unite in a recommendation to Congress that 
legislation be forthwith enacted creating a separate an- 
thracite coal commission with authority to investigate and 
report promptly on every phase of the industry and the 
parties hereby ask the President to request the enactment 
by Congress of the recommended legislation. 

4. The continuance of production after August 31, 1923, 
shall be upon such terms as the parties may agree upon in 
the light of the report of the commission. 

During the ensuing week, the United Mine Workers of America 
summoned a tri-district convention, which ratified the agreement, and 
anthracite mining was resumed September 11, the suspension having 
continued 163 days, or only one day less than the general strike of 
1902. 

During the six months, April-September, 1921, the total ship- 
ments of anthracite were 34,350,584 gross tons. 

During the same period in 1922, total shipments were 4,507,132. 

The anthracite industry, therefore, as a consequence of the strike 
began the fall and winter season with a deficit of 29,843,452 tons, com- 
pared with the preceding coal year. 

Wages in the Anthracite Industry 

Survey by the National Industrial Conference Board 

The following is a summary of a report issued March 20th by the 
National Industrial Conference Board: 

"This investigation is the most comprehensive study ever made of 
conditions in the anthracite industry. It covers fifty-one companies 
with 94,514 wage earners, operating 179 collieries, of which the total 
production in 1920 was 64,548,928 tons, or about 91 percent of the 
entire production of the industry. 

"The period covered is from the last half of June, 1914, to the last 
half of October, 1921, and the results show conditions as to earnings, 
hours of work and employment in a representative period under the 
agreement of 1912-1916, as compared with a representative period 
under that of 1920-1921, which expires March 31, and the renewal of 
which the operators and workers have just met to discuss. 

[ 43 ] 



"The investigation covered the same companies during the entire 
period. All classes of wage earners in the industry are included except 
clerks and executives, contract miners' helpers and workers who missed 
more than two days of the full working time in any semi-monthly period. 

Average Wage 72.8 Cents an Hour — Increase 162 Percent 

"The investigation shows that the average hourly earnings of all 
wage earners were 27.8 cents in June, 1914, and rose to 72.8 cents in 
October, 1921, an increase of 162 percent. 

"Excluding contract miners, who are paid on a different basis from 
ordinary workers and whose earnings tend to swell the average, this 
increase is from 22.5 cents to 59.9 cents, or 166 percent. 

"The average actual earnings of all wage earners in the semi- 
monthly period in the last half of June, 1914, were $29.81, and rose 
to $75.18 in October, 1921, an increase of 152 percent. On this basis 
the weekly earnings of all wage earners rose from $13.76 in 1914 to 
$34.71 in October, 1921. 

Fuel Time Employment 

"During this period the average hours worked in a semi-monthly 
period for all wage earners declined from 107.4 to 103.3. Excluding 
contract miners, the decline was from 115.1 hours in 1914 to 111.9 
hours in October, 1921. 

"The total numbers of workers employed showed practically no 
change during the entire period. The number of breaker starts per 
colliery, which serves directly to indicate the amount of mine activity 
and therefore the opportunity for employment, was 11.6 in June, 1914. 
rose to 12.5 in June, 1921, and declined to 11.8 in October, 1921. In 
short, employment in the anthracite industry has been fairly regular 
throughout the entire period. 

Wages Above Cost or LrviNG 

"Comparing changes in actual earnings with changes in cost of 
living during the period covered, the investigation shows that real 
hourly earnings of all wage earners in October, 1921, were 60 percent 
above those in June, 1914. Excluding contract miners, the increase 
was 62 per cent during this period. Real weekly earnings in October. 
1921, were 54 percent higher than those in June, 1914. 

"A comparison of the average actual hourly earnings in the an- 
thracite industry with those of wage earners in manufacturing and on 
railroads, as set forth in previous reports of the Conference Board 
shows that while actual hourly earnings of anthracite workers were 

[ 44 ] 



lower than those of industrial and railroad workers in 1914 they were 
higher in 1921 than those of the other two groups. 

"The percentage of increase in actual hourly earnings for indus- 
trial workers from July, 1914, to July, 1921, was 113 percent; for 
railroad workers up to October 1, 1921, 131 percent, and for anthracite 
workers, 166 percent. By July, 1921, the average weekly earnings of 
workers in manufacturing industries were only 83 percent above 1914, 
those in railroad work in October, 1921, 102 percent, while in anthra- 
cite mining the increase was 152 percent. 

Work Fifty-one Hours a Week 

"The average actual hours worked per week by wage earners in 
manufacturing industries in 1914 were 51.3 as compared with 44 hours 
in July, 1921 ; those in the railroad industry were 59.7 in 1914 as com- 
pared with 52.2 in October, 1921 ; while the average hours per week for 
all workers excluding contract miners in the anthracite industry were 
53.1 in 1914 and 51.7 hours in October, 1921. 

"A comparison between representative periods from July, 1914, to 
October, 1921, shows that while employment has increased 21 percent 
on the railroads, and declined 8 percent in manufacturing industries, 
it has remained at practically the same level in anthracite coal mining. 

"Up to October, 1921, real hourly earnings in the anthracite indus- 
try have increased 60 percent as compared with an increase of 41 per- 
cent for railroad workers and of 32 percent for industrial workers up 
to July, 1921. Real weekly earnings in the anthracite industry have 
increased 54 percent as compared with 23 percent for railroad workers 
and 13 percent for workers in manufacturing industries generally. 

"In these comparisons the figures for workers in manufacturing 
industries go down only to July, 1921. Later data would make the 
contrast even more striking because of the continued decline in wages 
in manufacturing industries, while wages of anthracite workers fixed 
under the 1920-22 agreement have remained constant. 

"Disproportionate" Wage Increase in Anthracite Industry 

"The disproportionate increase in wages in the anthracite industry 
as compared with changes in manufacturing wages and railroad wages, 
is shown particularly when the changes in earnings of common outside 
labor in the anthracite industry are compared with those of common 
labor on Class I railroads and with those of common or unskilled labor 
in manufacturing industries. 

"The increase in hourly earning of common labor in manufacturing 
industries from July, 1914, to July, 1921, was 117 percent; from June, 

[45] 
i 



1914, through October, 1921, those of railroad workers rose to 138 
percent, and those of outside common labor in anthracite mining 189 
percent. 

"During these periods the increase in actual weekly earnings for 
common labor in manufacturing industries were 85 percent, for com- 
mon labor on railroads, 99 percent, and for common outside labor in 
anthracite mining 189 percent. 

How Common Laboe Benefited 

"Comparing these changes with changes in the cost of living dur- 
ing these periods, the real hourly earnings of common labor in manu- 
facturing increased 34 percent ; on railroads, 45 percent ; in anthracite 
mining, 77 percent. Real weekly earnings of common industrial labor 
increased 14 percent ; common railroad labor, 22 percent, and common 
outside mining labor, 77 percent. 

"The average hours worked per week declined 8.0 hours for com- 
mon industrial labor, 9.6 hours for common railroad labor, while those 
of common outside anthracite mining labor increased 0.2 hour." 

Finally, the board's statement says, in considering adjustments 
in the anthracite mining industry, the following outstanding factors 
must be taken into account : 

"1. The wage increases since 1914 have been very extensive. 

"2. There has been no wage reduction in the depression period. 

"3. The increases for surface labor have been far above those for 
underground workers in more hazardous occupations. 

"4. The increases have been greater for the unskilled worker and 
the day worker than for the skilled laborer and the man who works 
on a contract or tonnage basis. 

"5. The constant demand for anthracite as domestic fuel has 
maintained employment and hours of work at a practically uniform 
level." 

Living Costs in the Anthracite Region 

Survey by the National Industrial Conference Board 

The following is a summary of a report issued March 27 by the 
Xational Industrial Conference Board : 

"This investigation is the most comprehensive survey of the cost of 
living that has ever been made in the anthracite coal fields. It shows that 
the minimum cost of maintaining a fair American standard of living among 
anthracite mine workers' families, according to conditions actually prevailing, 

[ 46 ] 



in February, 1922, varied from $897.34 a year for a family consisting of 
a man, woman and one child living in company owned houses to $1,475.45 
a year for a similar family with four children living in commercially owned 
houses. 

"Single men paying for board and lodging, on the other hand, because 
the cost of their necessities is normally considerably greater than would be 
their proportional share of the cost in a family group, required $703.96 a 
year to live at a fair minimum American standard in the anthracite region 
in February, 1922. 

"There were slight variations in these figures for the different sections 
of the anthracite coal fields but the figures for the area as a whole are suffi- 
ciently representative of conditions generally prevailing. In addition to the 
comparatively large centers such as Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Hazleton, Potts- 
ville, Shamokin and Shenandoah, 28 smaller communities were visited. Prices 
were secured from 116 food stores and from 91 clothing stores. Many of 
these were in each case units in a chain store system and therefore the prices 
secured represent several times this number of quotations. House rents 
were secured from a large number of agencies in the communities visited, 
and prices of coal, electric light rates, carfares, organization dues and the 
cost of other important sundries items were likewise obtained. Averages 
of these were used as the basis of the Board's final estimates regarding the 
cost of living. 

"The investigation shows that between July, 1920, when the peak of 
the rise in the cost of living was reached, and February, 1922, the minimum 
cost of living for families of anthracite mine workers declined 20.7 percent. 
Among families who live in houses owned by the coal companies, representing 
less than 10 percent of the miners, the decrease in cost was 23.2 percent. 
This difference is due to the fact that while rents of privately-owned houses 
had advanced since July, 1920, the coal companies were charging the same 
rents in February, 1922, as they had been in July, 1920. 

"These decreases in the cost of living for families in the anthracite 
region are very close to the decrease of 22.9 percent for the same period 
recorded for the country as a whole. For single men the decrease in the 
cost of living was less than for families, owing to the fact that their major 
expenditure, the cost of room and board, had not declined. Between July, 
1920, and February, 1922, the cost of living for an anthracite mine worker 
living apart from a family group decreased 8.5 percent. 

"The price of food for a family living at a fair minimum standard de- 
clined 28 percent in the anthracite region between July, 1920, and February, 
1922. This means that in February, 1922, a family of man, wife and one 
child would need to spend $387.89 annually for food. To this amount 
should be added $95.52 a year for each additional child. These figures do 
not take into account possible savings to the family through keeping chickens, 
cows and pigs or raising at least summer vegetables. There was very little 
difference in the decrease in the cost of food found in the northern, middle 
or southern fields. 

"House rents for commercially owned houses had advanced 21 percent 
within the 19 months. These advances varied from an average of 17 per- 
cent in the northern field exclusive of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, to 22 
percent in the middle field. In no case was the difference between the various 
sections very great, however. Rents of houses owned by the coal companies 
had not changed. In February, 1922, the minimum rent of four-room 
houses, privately owned, averaged $148.82 a year. Accommodations large 
enough for a family of three would cost $112.30. Company houses rented 
for $56 and $42 respectively. 

[47 ] 



"The greatest decline in the cost of any of the major items making 
up the total cost of living in the anthracite region was for clothing, the 
average minimum cost of which decreased 32 percent between July, 192 0, 
and February, 1922. This decrease was leas: in the cities and greatest in 
the middle anthracite field, but the total spread was only 6 points. In 
February, 19 2 2, a family with one child would need to spend a minimum 
of $208.95 annually to clothe itself according to a minimum American stand- 
ard. Families with larger number of children would require $30.22 more a 
year for the clothing of each additional child in the family group. 

"Anthracite miners uniformly purchase their coal directly from the 

coal companies and because it is relatively cheap and their houses are often 
poorly built and unusually exposed a large amount of coal is burned. The 
price of coal at the mines advanced, however, and so did the price of haul- 
ing it. Thus in February, 1922, miners were paying approximately 22 per- 
cent more for coal than they were in July, 1920. During this period rates 
for electricity for domestic use did not change, although the price of kerosene 
oil, which is frequently used for lighting purposes in some of the more 
rural communities, declined. The combined cost of fuel and light in the 
anthracite region in February, 192 2, was therefore 12 percent or 13 per- 
cent higher than in July, 19 2 0. 

"Changes in the cost of sundries varied. Carfares, taxes and organiza- 
tion expenses increased. On the other hand, the cost of candy, tobacco, and 
soft drinks and household furnishings and supplies as well as the necessary 
cost of insurance and contributions to church and charity, declined. Medical 
care, recreation and daily newspapers cost the same in February, 1922, as 
in July, 192 0. 

"Combining these changes in the cost of all the items making up the 
average family's expenditures for sundries it was found that 9 percent 
less was necessary in February, 1922, than in July, 1920. On the later 
date, a family with one child would need to spend $203.78 a year on sundries. 
To this should be added approximately $28 a year for sundries for each 
additional child. 

"Combining the cost of all of these items going to make up a minimum 
standard of living in the anthracite field, according to conditions actually 
existing, it was found that the maintenance of a fair standard in February, 
1922, required at leas: $9 69.71 a year for a man, woman and one child. For 
a family with two children the corresponding annual minimum cost would 
be $1,168.42; for a family with three children the annual minimum cost 
would be $1,321.94; and for a family with four children the annual minimum 
cost would be $1,475.45. 

"These figures are for families living in commercially owned and rented 
houses. For houses owned and rented to their employes by the coal com- 
panies the annual cost would be slightly lower, but less than 10 percent 
of the anthracite mine workers live in company owned houses. 

"Changes in the cost of the separate items required for the main- 
tenance of a minimum standard of living of a single man in the anthracite 
roeiaa were very similar to those of a family, except that the family's de- 
creased food cos: was not reflected in a decreased price of board for the 
single man. The average cost of his clothing declined 32 percent; but his 
combined sundries cost only 1 percent less. The combined decrease in 
the cost of living of a single man in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania 
between July, 1920, and February, 1922, was 8.5 percent." 



[ 48 ] 



A Correction of Mr* Lewis's Statements 

{Before the House Committee of Labor) 

Shortly after the anthracite operators and representatives of the 
anthracite mine workers met in New York for their joint conference 
regarding a new agreement, President John L. Lewis, of the United 
Mine Workers of America, appeared as a witness before the House 
Committee on Labor in Washington, to testify with respect to the 
Bland coal investigation bill. His remarks as carried in the official 
record and in press releases for newspapers of April 4, dealt largely 
with bituminous coal, but parts of his testimony purported to portray 
conditions in the anthracite industry. 

The following letter to Chairman Nolan, of the House Committee 
on Labor, from Chairman S. D. Warriner, of the General Policies Com- 
mittee of Anthracite Operators, bearing upon Mr. Lewis's anthracite 
testimony, is self-explanatory: 

April 29, 1922. 

In his testimony before your Committee Mr. John L. Lewis, 
President of the United Mine Workers of America, made certain state- 
ments regarding present conditions in the anthracite region which I 
cannot permit to remain on the record unchallenged. 

On Page 194 of the record, "Hearings before the Committee on 
Labor" on H. R. 11022, occurs the following statement by Mr. Lewis: 

The mine workers wished to remain at work in the mines, hut existing 
circumstances would not permit them to do so. The trouble so far, in the 
anthracite region is that the operators are not willing to allow the mine 
workers to continue at work during the progress of the negotiations, and 
as they have accumulated considerable stocks of coal, and as warm weather 
is about here, there will be no great hardship from the suspension except 
to the poor devil of a mine worker who finds himself out of a job, and to 
the railroad worker who may be laid off after the surplus stocks of coal 
are carried to the market. 

Not According to Facts 

This statement is distinctly at variance with the facts. In ac- 
cepting the invitation of Mr. Lewis to meet the representatives of their 
employes for the purpose of negotiating a new wage agreement, the 
General Policies Committee of the Anthracite Operators expressed re- 
gret that the date for the meeting fixed by Mr. Lewis, namely, March 
15th, approached so closely that of the termination of the existing 
agreement, as it would not permit the completion of the negotiations. 

They agreed, however, to meet with the miners 9 representatives 
and have been in almost continuous conference with them through the 

[ 49 ] 



wage negotiating committee since March 15th. In view of the fact that 
negotiations were in progress and that there were possibilities of an 
agreement being reached, which even if reached after April 1st, could 
have been made retroactive to that date, the calling of the suspension 
by Mr. Lewis came as a distinct surprise to the anthracite operators. 
Their representatives on the negotiating committee protested vigorous- 
ly on what they considered a flagrant breach of faith on the part of 
Mr. Lewis and his associates, but without avail. The anthracite opera- 
tors were absolutely without any responsibility for the calling of the 
sp ension. 

Stokage Stocks Uxsalable 

The statement that the operators had accumulated considerable 
stocks of coal falls to the ground when it is known that approximately 
90 percent of the coal in storage consisted of Pea and Buckwheat sizes 
which had backed up in the storage yard simply because of lack of 
demand for these sizes in the late months of 1921. 

Mr. Lr~i- in the paragraph following the one quoted says further: 
"In the anthracite field the operators are carrying out their agree- 
ments to enter into conference, but say there must be a suspension 
until it can be determined when the wage rates for the ensuing term 
are to be fixed." The anthracite operators never made nor contem- 
plated mating any such utterance. 

As to L:"v; Costs 

On page 199 of the Record, Mr. Lewis is quoted as saying: 

An Lr.Te = ::ga.:::z mie z^zezz.y ::::■;;::;: z'z~ iz.zzzzz.zizz :t::::: re- 
sile of 5:r = ::::- reTrO.; -.•-£ :=:: z'ilz zz.z ie:i:::e :r_ zziza :z lcSt r^nr.; 
ic.s :een ii5::z::i7 less z'zziz. :: ~z.=.~ :^i :r_ 5::ir_::i. =.zi :-ere::re :zz.sii~z- 
z'z'.j less z'z.=.z. z~z.z2z1z~z.2zz :i:e "r_::ei 5:e.:es :.s - ~'zz'.~ Ti'.s Lz.~isiizs.~i2Z 
has :ee~ zz'.j Zc.zzi=...j ::-70.r: zz: s: ::-.: :"~e =:r:r_r zzzzc.zi.iz7 :s :::: 
prices in :"~e 3.zzzz z-. : :z ± re^::r_s have e~ez rise- size 7zzz~ : . : : : =.: -i;:i 
:i~e ::r ::7::i :r_e rei> :::i :r_ S::ir.::r_ a~i z~zzzzz~Z2zz :r_e U::::e: 
States generally. 

What the report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics really said 
was: "During the month from February 15th to March 15th there 
were decreases (in the retail cost of food) in Detroit, Philadelphia, 
Rochester, Salt Lake City and Scranton of 3 percent ; in Norfolk and 
San Francisco of 2 percent, and in Chicago, Cincinnati, Columbus, 
Little Rock. Louisville, Mobile, Minneapolis X Orleans and St. Paul 
of 1 percent," Scranton being included in the group of cities that 
reported, the largest decrease. 

£50] 



ACTUAL HOURLY EARNINGS, ALL MALE LABOR, MANUFACTURING, CLASS I 
RAILROADS, AND GROUP COVERED IN ANTHRACITE MINING 

(National Industrial Conference Board) 

CENTS 

""•^ AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS 



ou 














Al 

ANTHt; 


l LABOR 
ACTTE MINIK 


Srr. 

rs.B* 


70 
GO 
50 
40 


^ 
















^m 
















*" ^^^k „L MALE LABI JJJL^§* ..... 

i ^T NANUFACTURHG ^ J "* T -. d 
^^ .55.4 f 






/$ 


^- 


^M 












^ 




fn 


ALLLABCK 
A3SIRAILR 


M03 








3D i 


p. 


















so 

10 

n 











































1914 1915 1916 1917 I9IB 1919 1920 1921 1922 



"REAL" HOURLY EARNINGS, ALL MALE LABOR, MANUFACTURING, CLASS I 
RAILROADS, AND GROUP COVERED IN ANTHRACITE MINING 



INOEX 
NUMKOS 

160 



170 
IBO 
ISO 
140 
130 
ISO 
I 10 
10 
90 



(National Industrial Conference Board) 
"REAL" HOURLY EARNINGS 



































£&-**\ 


Ct 


































1 DC 


C 










ALL L 


*BQR. 
















ANTHB/ 
MIN 


Loire ^. 




. MALE LABO 
NUFACTURIN 


i 








"^"^ _, 




"""""' 










^^ 


^ - ^-"»-""" 




W ALL \J> 
fCLASS I B. 


BOB. 
JLBOADa 

























1914 1915 1916 1917 I9IB 1910 1920 1921 1922 

[ 51 ] 



The Case for the Anthracite Operators 

An interciezc zcith Chairman S. D. Warriner, of the General Committee, 

reported by George Sox McCain and reprinted from the 

Philadelphia Evening Public Ledger of August 2, 1902. 

The president of the gTeat corporation talked unreservedly. There was no 
hesitation or evasion. At times he paused to recall figures or searched the pile 
of papers, envelopes and books before him for statistics. 

"From the operators' standpoint, and to all intents and purposes, the 
existing- condition in the anthracite industry is a strike and not a lockout," said 
Mr. Warriner, in reply to my question. 

John L Lewis, International President of the United Mine Workers of 
America, it will be recalled, had so described the situation to me in an interview 
las: Saturday. 

"The miners assert that they desired to work during pending negotiations 
over a new wage scale, but were prevented from doing so by the operators," 
I suggested. 

"The stenographic report to our first conference with the miners, March 21 
last, furnishes the facts as to that," replied Mr. Warriner. He produced a type- 
written record from which he read at intervals. 

"In accordance with our contract with the miners we met to negotiate a 
new agreement on wages and working conditions. A committee on negotiations 
was appointed consisting of four miners and four opera:::? 

"It met on March 21. At that meeting Mr. Lewis, the mine workers' 
president, read an order which he said had already been released for publication. 
It was signed by the international officers of the miners' organization and called 
for a suspension of work in both anthracite and bituminous fields April 1. 

Marcus Decided To Stop Work 

"Mr. Lewis specifically stated that this order was in compliance with the 
instructions of the miners' convention held at Shamokin. The resolution provided 
that all mining should cease after April 1 or until a new contract had been made. 

"The stenographic report of that meeting shows that the operators v:r:r- 
ously protested this action as a breach of faith on the miners' part. But the 
order had gone forth and was not subject to change, so the best we could do was 
to agree on a basis of compensation for pumpmen and firemen who were to 
remain at work to prevent the mines from becoming flooded. 

"Before the House Committee on Labor at Washington Mr. Lewis said: 
The mine workers wished to remain at work in the mines, but existing 
circumstances would not permit them to do so. The trouble so far in the anthra- 
cite region is that the operators are not willing to allow the mine workers to 
continue at work during the progress of the negotiations, and as they have 
accumulated considerable stocks of coal, and as warm weather is about here, 
there will be no great hardship from the suspension except to the poor devil of 
a mine worker, who finds himself out of a job, and to the railroad worker, who 
may be laid off after the surplus stocks of coal are carried to the market' 

Puts Blame ox Lewis 

"That statement was distinctly at variance with the facts," continued 
Mr. Warriner. "Negotiations were in progress, and there were possibilities of 
an agreement, which, even if reached after April 1, could have been made re- 
troactive to that date. 

We had absolutely nothing to do with the suspension of work. Mr. Lewis 
ordered it himself. Moreover, Mr. Lewis expressly stated, 'I take the responsibility 
of this action upon myself.' " 

"Is it true that the operators had accumulated large stocks of coal that 
were to be disposed of during the suspension at increased prices," I asked. 

[ 52 ] 



Stocks of Coal When Strike Began 

"Absolutely not. There was not more than the normal stocks ahead. It 
is an established rule that stocks are accumulated during- the winter to be avail- 
able for the spring- businees at reduced prices, as is well known. Of the stock 
accumulated approximately 90 per cent, consisted of pea and buckwheat sizes, 
which had backed up in the storage yards because of lack of demand for these 
sizes in the late months of 1921." 

"Did you, as claimed by the miners, increase the price after the suspension 
became operative?" I asked. 

"No. We adhered strictly to our circular prices as a maximum. We did not 
advance the rate." 

"Are the anthracite operators willing to accept a Federal commission which 
will investigate everything in connection with the anthracite business, including 
not only wages and working conditions, but transportation costs, selling agencies 
and corporation royalties, cost of supplies to the miners, etc.?" I asked. 

"We are," was the reply. "The operators' position has been consistently 
just this: Solely to reach an agreement they made a proposal to the miners of 
unrestricted arbitration in answer to their question at that time. We specifically 
agreed to abide by the findings of any commission appointed by President Harding. 
We agreed that the President himself should instruct the commission as to the 
scope of its investigations. 

"Following the conference with the President at Washington he stated 
publicly that the anthracite operators had accepted his proposal unconditionally." 

"Meaning that it included the subjects I have mentioned above?" I sug- 
gested. 

"Exactly." 

Attitude of Operators on Freight Rates 

"A great deal has been said and written about the attitude of the anthra- 
cite operators on the freight-rate question; that you have made no effort to 
obtain reduction of the coal traffic cost. What is your attitude on the excessive 
freight rates charged on your product as compared with that on other com- 
modities?" I inquired. 

"I am glad you asked that question," said Mr. Warriner, "for several 
reasons." Then he went on: 

"The miners have laid great stress on that matter, claiming that the 
operators refused to join in any request for a reduction of freight from the 
anthracite field. It is absolutely wrong, and the facts are just the reverse. 

"During our negotiations on April 27 the miners' officials presented certain 
resolutions alleging that the railroads were collecting excessive freight rates; 
that wholesale and retail agencies were also charging exorbitant prices, and 
asking us to join in a petition to the Interstate Commerce Commission and the 
Federal Trade Commission that they be investigated. 

"It was a gratuitous suggestion. They should have known that the an- 
thracite operators had already taken that step. With other shippers we had not 
only petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission, prepared briefs and pre- 
sented facts, but had gone the full length in an endeavor to obtain reduced 
freight rates," added Mr. Warriner with a smile. 

"The commission had taken cognizance of this fact and was even then, 
as the miners presented their resolution at our wage conference, on the eve of 
taking action. 

"The Interstate Commerce Commission subsequently reduced the rates, 
which, as you know, became effective July 1 last. That, I think, answers their 
assertion definitely." 

The Price of Coae 

"What is the mystery about the difference between the cost of coal at the 
mines and the cost to the consumer?" I asked. "It is the one thing the public 
wants to know." 

"One of the most, if not the most, difficult problems associated with the 
mining and distribution of anthracite is to get clearly into the minds of the 
consumers the relationship between the cost of production, the price at the mine 
and the price that the consumer pays for his coal, delivered in the cellar," said 
Mr. Warriner. 

[ 53 ] 



"One sees in his morning paper a statement to the effect that out of the 
$12 or $13 per ton that his dealer charges him the miner gets only $2 or even 
less, and he asks himself or the paper asks for him, Who gets the difference? 

Tells About Costs 

"Let me quote the most recent official statement of costs of anthracite 
production. It is that of the Federal Trade Commission in 1919, which covered 
six years from 1913 to 1918. Its report shows that the labor cost of production 
was $3.41 per ton. To this, however, must be added the 17.4 per cent increase 
granted the miners by President Wilson's commission in 1920, which brings the 
labor cost to a trifle over $4 per ton. These figures are based on gross tons. 

"As we showed the Wage Committee of miners in our last negotiations, this 
figure of $4 was underestimated. It was actually over $4.11. To this should be 
added $1.05 per gross ton for supplies, and fifty-eight cents for overhead, making 
a total cost of $5.74 per ton. 

"Now as to the prices realized for the fuel," he want on. 

"Prices for domestic sizes of anthracite on September 1, 1920, when the 
Wilson commission made its award, ranged from $7.75 to $8.10 per ton f. o. b. 
at the mines. When these figures are compared with the total cost as I have 
shown, our gross margin on the mining operation is apparently from $2 to $2.35 
per ton. 

"But you must remember that anthracite as it comes from the breaker is 
not all egg, stove and nut coal. Approximately 11 per cent consists of pea coal, 
which sells at little, if any, above cost of production, and of 25 to 30 percent 
of so-called 'steam' sizes that sell at less than the labor cost of production. 

The Operators' "Margin" 

"When these allowances are made the average realization to the com- 
panies instead of being $7.75 or $8.10 a ton is actually $6.28, and the average 
margin instead of being $2 or $2.35 is fifty-four cents a ton. 

"But, and note this particularly, from this margin must be deducted, before 
any profits and dividends can be considered, Federal taxes, and the summer and 
other trade discounts, which must be allowed. It is a safe computation, therefore, 
that our net return on investment in the last two years has ranged from 35 to 
40 cents a ton. Taking everything into consideration, the average return in 
the anthracite industry is not more than 5 percent. In order to insure against 
the risks inherent in the industry the yield should not be less than 10 percent 
on the investment," said Mr. Warriner. 

"The returns of profit come from the so-called 'domestic' sizes: Lump and 
broken, egg, stove, chestnut and pea. A loss is registered in the steam sizes: 
buckwheat, boiler, etc. 

"The steam sizes of anthracite are not, as claimed by some, by-products 
of manufacture, as are tar, ammonia and gas in the manufacture of coke, or 
fertilizing products in a slaughter-house. They go through exactly the same 
processes of screening and cleaning as do the domestic sizes; they are sold below 
the cost of production, and while the revenue from them forms a part of the 
total Income, it is not recovery from by-products that can be considered as re- 
ducing the cost of manufacture. 

"I might go into the question of the different costs of production, between 
the northern and southern anthracite regions," continued Mr. Warriner. "In the 
northern the coal beds lie flat, while in the middle or Lehigh region and the 
southern or Schuylkill region they are folded and distorted and most of the 
mining operations must be conducted on steep pitches. They produce a lower per- 
centage of domestic sizes and a higher percentage of steam sizes, in addition to 
greater cost of mining. 

"I have endeavored to clarify in a comprehensive way this subject, which 
is a very complicated one. It involves close and intricate calculation but, as I 
said, we are prepared to submit these and all other facts and figures to a scientific 
commission that will examine everything in a fair and unbiased way. We can- 
not make a more explicit proposition than that." 

[ 54 ] 



"There is another issue that is of equally great importance," I said. "It is 
that when the Federal Trade Commission was in the way of making an inves- 
tigation of your books to ascertain the matter of profits, or was about to do so, 
you obtained an injunction which prevented it from going ahead." 



Never Objected to Probe 

"So far as the Federal Trade Commission is concerned, the anthracite 
operators have never raised any objection to its investigation," was the reply. 
"Instead we have always fully co-operated with it. We did point out to the 
miners, however, that these investigations at this particular time would not in 
the slightest expedite the settlement of the wage and other questions before us, 
or help to get the miners at work as quickly as possible. 

"We did not. It is another perversion of the facts. What led to that im- 
pression was that a soft-coal corporation, the Maynard Coal Company, I do not 
recall just where they are located, went into court and obtained an injunction 
prohibiting the Trade Commission from proceeding with its investigations with 
them along the line you have indicated, and the commission stopped its work 
right there. 

"Let me say further and emphatically," he continued, "that the anthracite 
operators had no hand in that transaction. We knew nothing about the court 
proceedings till the facts became public." 

"It is charged by the miners that the selling corporations and wholesale 
agencies reap vast profits from their favorable position to the trade; that the 
producers are really also the selling agencies and corporations," I continued. 

"So far as our company, the Lehigh Coal and Navigation Company, is 
concerned, we have no selling company. We sell directly to the retailer and 
consumer. I must say, however, that as far as the alleged selling agencies 
maintained by other companies go, they sell their coal in competition with ours," 
he replied. 

"What companies have selling agencies?" 

"So far as I know there are only two — the Delaware, Lackawanna and 
Western and the Lehigh Valley Coal Company." 



Quizzed on Royalties 

"What about the matter of exorbitant royalties paid by some of the 
companies?" 

"I cannot speak personally, as our company holds its lands in fee and 
has done so for many years. The fact is, however, that the matter of royalties 
is one of lesser importance. The Girard estate, of this city, is charged by the 
miners with demanding high royalties, but only about 5 percent of all the ton- 
nage of the region is produced from its properties." 

"What is your view of the situation in the anthracite region? What 
is to be the solution?" I inquired. 

"Mr. Lewis has declared that there will be no settlement in the anthracite 
field until the bituminous issue is adjusted," replied Mr. Warriner. 

"For the last twenty years, or since the Roosevelt Commission acted, the 
anthracite operators and miners have operated under their own agreements. 
During that period, or till 1920, we recognized the mine workers' organization 
as the party with whom we dealt in comformity to the Roosevelt agreement. 

"In 1920 the Wilson Commission, following renewed pledges by the workers' 
leaders that the anthracite miners were an autonomous body and independent, 
directed that a contract be signed with the United Mine Workers of America. 
Notes of our meetings then held show that pledges made by the United Mine 
Workers were that we had nothing to fear from the dominance of the bitumin- 
ous workers. 

"All this is now changed, according to Mr. Lewis. The pledges of our men 
are thrown to the winds," was the comment. 

[ 55 ] 



Nothing in Common With Bituminous 

"The anthracite situation presents nothing in common with the bituminous. 
We have no problems of non-employment, or short working' periods, and it has 
been our object to keep it so. 

"In spite, however, of our continuous efforts to negotiate and by offers of 
arbitration, not only by the operators but by President Harding, the mine 
workers' leaders have agreed to no basis of settlement except with such re- 
strictions as the complete recognition of their union, a revision of wages only 
upward and other matters as would preclude any settlement of the controversy 
whatever. 

"Now, in addition, we are informed, that no settlement is possible until 
the bituminous issue is adjusted. In view of all this we feel that we are in- 
nocent of all responsibility for the present conditions. We are absolutely 
helpless to remedy the matter. 

"I desire to emphasize this fact," Mr. Warriner continued, "that this 
suspension, if continued, will create an undoubted shortage of coal this winter 
with the most deplorable results. I believe that an aroused public sentiment 
should demand a prompt settlement by fair arbitration, unrestricted in its nature 
and scope and binding on both miners and operators so that our mines may 
resume work with the least delay." 

"As to the question of wages, aside from the other issues advanced by 
the miners, what is your position?" I inquired. 

"We cannot help but feel that the miners have purposely enlarged upon 
the question of operator's profits, transportation, royalties and other matters 
to avoid a discussion of the real issue." 

The Real Issue 

"And what is the real issue from the operators' viewpoint?" I asked. 

"This: Will the public continue to pay for a worker in a commodity like 
a coal miner, whose wage is above the wartime peak, while millions of other 
workers, most of whom are obliged to buy coal, have been and are compelled to 
accept reductions by the law of economics and when the cost of living to the 
miners has been materially reduced and they have not suffered from non-employ- 
ment?" replied Mr. Warriner with earnestness. 

"Even railroad workers have been obliged to accept two reductions which 
the coal miners are seeking to retain. 

"The anthracite operators have never offered to the miners wages that did 
not fully maintain the purchasing power set by the Wilson Commission when the 
cost of living was at its peak and wages that are far in excess of those paid in 
virtually every other industry. 

"Anthracite operators cannot be charged with seeking to degrade the mine 
workers. Instead they desire to pay a wage that will make mine working at- 
tractive," said Mr. Warriner. 

"There is another matter involved," I suggested. "It is that of the an- 
thracite industry as an industry essential to the very life of the people." 

"There is another side to that," countered the operators' chairman. "We 
take the position that anthracite is not an essential commodity, and for these 
reasons: It is in competition with all other forms of coal, and if full-time employ- 
ment is to be offered anthracite miners it must be at a rate at which coal can be 
produced at a cost which will enable it to be freely sold. 

"As a matter of fact, smokeless bituminous has largely cut into anthracite 
sales in the New York market. The City of Philadelphia, for its schools, has 
discontinued the use of anthracite domestic sizes and is contracting instead for 
domestic coke. 

"Gas produced from bituminous coal is being used in constantly increasing 
quantities. There was a time, after the general introduction of electricity when 
the gas supply business was seriously endangered. Science and invention, how- 
ever, have stepped in, and now public utility companies in gas production are 
among the largest dividend payers. 

[56 ] 



Can't Stand Wage Inflation 

"All this is having its effect on the anthracite industry, and an inflated 
wage will still further affect it, besides inevitably reacting upon the workers." 

"How?" 

"Because it will inflate prices of production and retard distribution in 
competition with other fuel." 

"Do you regard the present wages of anthracite miners as inflated, under 
the conditions you have outlined?" I asked. 

"Let me answer your question with figures," responded Mr. Warriner. 

"Mr. Lewis complains about the $4.20 minimum rate in the anthracite 
field paid to outside labor. It must be borne in mind that this is fifty-two and 
one-half cents per hour. That is a rate twice as high as is paid in other in- 
dustries where the prevailing figure is from twenty-five to thirty-five cents 
per hour. 

"He also charged that the maximum amount that common outside labor 
can earn yearly is $1100. As a matter of fact, the average earning of outside, 
or common labor, last year was not $1100 but $1439. And these figures were 
taken from all the anthracite payrolls. It comprised every man who appeared 
on the rolls of the anthracite companies throughout the year. 

"If the demand of the miners for an increase of $1 a day for outside labor 
were granted it would increase their yearly earnings from $1439 to $1779 at 
the same opportunity for employment offered them; and this for labor that 
requires no special skill." 

"How about the inside workers, the skilled labor?" I injected. 

"There are various kinds of this labor. There are contract miners and 
others in the skilled class working on time. The average actual net earnings 
of these men, after all expenses are deducted, all supplies, assistants, etc., was 
$2170.40. The average earnings of all employes in the region last year was 
$1803.05. 

"We feel assured that these wages compare favorably with peak wages 
paid in other industries. While other industries reduced wages it is no more 
than fair that anthracite workers should recognize the facts; or if not that 
they will at least be willing to submit their demands to arbitration," said 
Mr. Warriner in conclusion. 

Analysis of Anthracite 
Production Costs 

Compiled by S. D. Warriner, President of the Lehigh Coal # Navigation 

Company, and reprinted from Mining and Metallurgy, 

issue of July, 1922. 

One of the most, if not the most, difficult of the problems associated with 
the mining and distribution of anthracite is to get clearly into the minds of the 
consumers and of the editorial and reportorial writers in the public press the 
relationship between the cost of production, the price at the mine and the 
price that the consumer pays for his coal, delivered in the cellar. One sees in 
his morning paper a statement to the effect that out of the $12 or $13 per ton 
that his dealer charges him, the miner gets only $2 or even less, and he asks 
himself or the paper asks for him, "Who gets the difference?" Not infrequently 
the amount that the miner gets is given for run-of-mine bituminous coal while 
the price quoted is that of prepared anthracite, egg, stove or chestnut, as the 
case may be, delivered to the bin of the consumer, and the difference stands out 
with all the more prominence; and it sticks in his memory with a persistency 
which no manner of explanation is able to efface. 

[57] 



A recently published official report for the year 1921 of one of the State 
Bureaus stated the total production of anthracite in net tons of 2000 lb., and 
included not only the output recovered by the washeries from old culm banks 
and by dredges from creek and river channels, but also the colliery consumption: 
i. e.. the coal used by the companies in the operation of the collieries. This 
resulted in a total production of 90,509,075 met tons for which the labor cost was 
stated at $283,961,300, or $3.13 per net ton, equivalent to $3.50 per gross ton. 
This figure at SE .•':• vr== im n le 1 i a rely seized upon as representing the labor cost 
:e: g~:=s "-•- - fresh-mined commercial coal. It is almost a helpless task to 
try to correct such errors of statement, in the first place, and, in the second 
place, to correct the misapprehensions that arise from them. As a matter of 
fact, the report was misleading in regard to the labor cost of the entire pro- 
duction shipped, as the coal used for colliery consumption should be deducted. 
Correctly stated, the report should have shown, calculated in terms of gross 
tons of 2240 lb., the legal weight in Pennsylvania, as follows: 

Gross production SO. 607. 359 tons 

Less colliery fuel S. 737 .137 tons 

Commercial production 71,850,222 tons 

Total labor bill S253, 961,300.00 

Labor cost per ton $ 3.952 

The foregoing figures of tonnage are obtained from the State Department 
of Mines. Even these include the quantity recovered from culm banks by 
washeries, and consequently the $3.95 arrived at as the average labor cost is 
somewhat less than that actually involved in the mining of fresh-mined coal. 
Unfortunately, the figures of washery production and the cost of producing it 
are not available. 

Anthracite Production. Cost and Realization 

The most recent official examination into the cost and realization from 
anthracite production was that of the Federal Trade Commission in 1919, which 
covered six calendar years from January 1, 1913, to December 3L 1918. This 
report shows that the labor cost of producing fresh-mined commercial anthra- 
cite in November and December (subsequent to the final "war bonus" advance 
in wages) was $3.41 per gross ton. If to this be added the 17.4 percent. 1 granted 
by the President's Commission in 1920, the labor cost since April 1, 1920, would 
appear to be a trifle over $4 per gross ton, which agrees closely with the figure 
quoted in the preceding paragraph. Data compiled for the information of the 
wage negotiations committee in the spring of 1922 showed, however, that the 
labor cost based upon these figures was underestimated, as it was actually a 
little over $4.11. This figure may be accepted as correct within so small a 
fraction as to be practically free from error. To it should be added, in order 
to get the total cost of production $1.05 per gross ton for supplies and 58 cents 
per gross ton for overhead, making the total cost (exclusive of Federal taxes; 
S 3.74 per gross ton. The average cost of fresh-mined commercial coal for the 
region will probably not vary 5c. a ton up or down from that figure. 

Now as to realisation. The prices for the domestic sizes of anthracite 
since September 1, 1920, when the commission handed down its award, have 
ranged from $7.75 to $8.10 per gross ton, f. o. b. mines. When these figures are 
compared with the total cost as shown above it would seem that the gross 
margin on the mining operations is from $2 to $2.35 a ton. It must be re- 
membered, however, that anthracite as it comes from the breaker is not all egg. 



: Ir:r;:e: mneragc fat ill ifjlnjrii. Src Manthl§ Labor Review, U. SL Daren of 

Labor Statistics. October, 1920. 

L 58 ] 



stove and nut coal. Approximately 11 percent of the total output consists of 
pea coal that sells at little, if any, above production cost, and of from 25 to 30 
percent of so-called steam sizes that sell at less than the labor cost alone. 

Table 1 gives a statement showing the results of a normal yield from a 
total of 100 tons of the different sizes to which have been applied the maximum 
company prices obtained in 1921 and 1922: 



Table 1 — Results of Normal Yield 



Tons 







Average 


Gain 


Total 


ine 


Realiza- 


Cost 


or Loss 


Gain or 


rice 


tion 


per Ton 


per Ton 


Loss 



Lump and broken 5.4 $7.75 $41.85 $5.74 +$2.01 +$10.85 

Egg 12.6 7.75 97.65 5.74 +2.01 +25.33 

Stove 20.1 8.10 162.81 

Chestnut 22.2 8.10 179.82 

Pea 11.1 6.00 66.60 

Buckwheat No. 1 14.2 3.50 49.70 

Buckwheat No. 2 (Rice) 6.8 2.50 17.00 

Buckwheat No. 3 (Barley).. 5.0 1.50 7.50 

Boiler (Birdseye) or other.. 2.6 2.00 5.20 

Totals and averages 100.0 *$6. 28 + $628.13 $5.74 +$ .54 +$54.14 



5.74 


+ 2.36 


+ 47.44 


5.74 


+ 2.36 


+ 52.39 


5.74 


+ 0.26 


+ 2.89 


5.74 


— 2.24 


— 31.81 


5.74 


— 3.24 


— 22.03 


5.74 


— 4.24 


— 21.20 


5.74 


— 3.74 


— 9.72 



'Average realization. 



From this it will be seen that, applying the maximum company prices to 
the entire production, the average realization, instead of being $7.75 or $8.10 a 
gross ton, is $6.28, and that the average margin, instead of being $2 or $2.35, was 
54 cents. From this margin must be deducted, before any funds are available 
as profits or dividends, such summer and trade discounts as may have been 
allowed and whatever contributions are made to the Federal Government in 
the way of taxes. Federal tax payments vary somewhat widely according to 
the earnings of the companies and the total amount is not known, so that no 
statement of the per ton average is possible. It is a safe guess, however, that 
the return on the investment in the last two years has ranged about 35c. to 40c. 
a ton. When it is considered that under present conditions the average invest- 
ment in an anthracite property is from $8 to $8.50 per ton of annual output, it is 
clearly apparent that the average return in the anthracite industry is not more 
than 5 percent on the investment, which not only is not excessive but because 
of the hazardous character of the business does not offer attractive features to 
capital seeking safe and profitable employment. Anthracite mining operations, 
in order to insure against the risks inherent in the industry should yield not 
less than 10 percent on the investment. 



Allocating Costs to Different Sizes 

In order to fix a value on inventory coal some of the anthracite companies 
allocate the average cost to the different sizes, basing the allocation on the actual 
quantity of each size produced multiplied by the average mine price per ton for 
that size. 

Upon this basis, the labor, supplies and miscellaneous expenses entering 
into the 100 tons of anthracite as given in Table 1 would be as shown in Table 2. 



[ 59 ] 



Table 2 — Allocated Costs of Labor, Etc., to 100 Tons 
of Anthracite 



Labor 



Supplies 



General 
Expenses 



Total Allo- 
cated Cost 



Per 

Total Ton 



Total 



Per 

Ton Total 



Per 
Ton 



Total 



Per 
Ton 



Broken $27.38 $5.07 $ 6.99 $1.29 $3.86 $0.72 $38.23 $7.08 

Egg 63.91 5.07 16.33 1.29 0.02 0.72 89.26 7.08 

Stove 106.53 5.30 27.22 1.35 15.03 0.75 148.78 7.40 

Chestnut 117.67 5.30 30.06 1.35 16.61 0.75 164.34 7.40 

Pea 43.56 3.92 11.13 1.00 6.15 0.56 60.84 5.48 

Buckwheat No. 1 32.51 2.29 8.30 0.59 4.59 0.32 45.40 3.20 

Buckwheat No. 2 11.14 1.64 2.85 0.42 1.57 0.23 15.56 2.29 

Buckwheat No 3 4.89 0.98 1.25 0.25 0.69 0.14 6.83 1.37 

Boiler 3.41 1.31 0.87 0.33 0.48 0.19 4.76 1.83 



Totals and averages. . .$411.00 $4.11 $105.00 $1.05 $58.00 $0.58 $574.00 $5.74 



We then have as the mine cost of, say, a ton of Stove coal, $7.40, of which 
$5.30 is for labor. Remember, this is the allocated actual cost, and that against 
the $5.30 allocated labor cost for Stove coal must be set that of $2.29 for Buck- 
wheat, $1.64 for Rice and $0.98 for Barley. 

Such a method of arriving at the cost is necessary, however, if anything 
like an understanding is to be had of what enters into the price of the coal 
which the consumer pays to his dealer. 

With this before us we can show approximately what are the factors 
entering into the consumer's price, say, in New York City. The cost of a ton 
of Stove coal at the mine is shown in Table 3. 



Table 3 — Allocated Cost of a Ton of Stove Coal at New York 

Per Equivalent 

Gross Tons in Net Tons 

of 2240 lb. of 2000 lb. 

Labor $ 5.30 $ 4.73 

Supplies 1.35 1.21 

General Expense v 0.75 0.67 

Total mine cost $ 7.40 $ 6.61 

Operator's margin as shown above is 0.70 0.62 

Total f. o. b. mine price $ 8.10 $ 7.23 

Transportation to New York 2.61 2.33 

Ferryage 0.50 0.45 

Total cost to dealer $11.21 $10.01 

Dealer's cost of distribution, margin and profits 3.29 

Retailer's price $13.30 



By the same process of reasoning, a ton of Buckwheat No. 2, delivered to 
the New York side of North River would contain the items of cost shown in 
Table 4. 

[60] 



Table 4 — Allocated Cost of a Ton of Buckwheat No. 2 
or Rice Coal at New York 



Per Equivalent 

Gross Ton in Net Tons 
of 2240 lb. of 2000 lb. 

Labor $ 1.64 

Supplies 0.42 

General expense 0.23 



Total mine cost $ 2.29 

Operator's margin as shown above is 0.21 



Total f . o. b. mine price $ 2.50 

Transportation to New York Harbor 2.47 

Lighterage 0.35 



? 


1.43 




.375 




.205 


$ 


2.045 




.187 


$ 


2.23 




2.20 




0.31 


$ 


4.75 




2.35 



Total cost at tidewater $ 5.32 

Dealer's cost of distribution, margin and profits 

Retailer's price $ 7.10 

It will be observed that while the operators' margin is figured at 70c. a 
gross ton, or 63c. a net ton, in the case of Stove coal, it is only 21c. a gross ton 
(18.7c. a net ton) in the case of Buckwheat No. 2. 

Steam Sizes Not a By-Product 

The "steam" sizes of anthracite are not, as claimed by some, by-products in 
the manufacture of domestic coal, as are tar, ammonia and gas in the man- 
ufacture of coke, or the fertilizer products in the operation of a slaughter house. 
They are a part of the original product and their character is not different from 
that of the primal products — the domestic sizes — nor changed by the process 
of manufacture. They go through exactly the same processes of screening and 
cleaning as do the domestic sizes, and while they are sold below the cost of 
production, the revenue from them forms a part of the total realization and is 
not a recovery from by-products that could be considered as reducing the cost 
of manufacture. 

Varying Costs and Realizations 

In the foregoing discussion, conclusions and deductions have been drawn 
from the average results as they obtain to-day. Naturally, not only do pro- 
duction costs vary in different parts of the field, but sales realizations with prices 
nearly as uniform as the product is in quality produce somewhat widely different 
results. In the Northern or "Wyoming region the beds lie relatively flat, while 
in the Middle, or Lehigh region, and the Southern or Schuylkill region, they are 
severely folded and distorted and most of the mining operations are conducted 
on steep pitches, a decidedly different proposition from those on the relatively 
flat-lying beds of the Wyoming region. In general, it may be said, as a result 
of these conditions, that mining costs in the "Wyoming region are less than in 
the Lehigh and Schuylkill, while, in the very nature of things, the methods 
necessarily employed in mining the steeply pitching beds produce a lower per- 
centage of the "domestic" sizes, and a higher percentage of the small or "steam" 
sizes. Hence we have the somewhat anomalous situation of low cost production 
in some cases yielding the highest realization. Mining in the steep pitches will 
yield and does yield as low as 55 percent of "prepared" or "domestic" sizes, 
whereas in the more favored low-cost mines in the flat-lying beds of the Northern 
region the yield will be as high as 75 or 80 percent. How this results in real- 

[ 61 ] 



ixation alone is shown in the following separations of 100 tons of mine-run coal 
into percentages of domestic and steam sixes at approximately average prices: 



S:ee?-p:::h;rg re is — ill yreli say 

55 tons domestic at an average of $i $440.00 

45 tons small at an average of $3 1 '. " . 

v.-\ I I 
Or an average of 15.75 per ton, whereas the flat-lying beds will 
yield, say 

75 tons dor.T= :: al an average of $f $500.00 

25 tons 5— all at an average of S3 75.00 



Or an average of $6.75 per ton. 



ihe average realiza:: : r. as air-; is a; ;: : : T..rr. a: el; r.a"_: ~ ay :e- 

7'r.e margin 'cetTveer. ::s: ar_i :::al realiza::: r. rr.as: z e 5;::. as — ill enable 
all C'f :'r. :se ::::>e:::rs :: :pe - - - Wr. :se ::::;: :s nezessary :: rr.ee: :re ie- 
mancs :: the public, which is now insistent that its domestic coal bill shall be 
r e i 'a : e f 

That such reduction cannot be accomplished withoul eiuction in the 

:-os: :■- :r:r;::::r. := :". ear ar/.ess a rr. a:er:ai r:r:::r. :: :r.e ::nr. age irrning 
from the high-cost, low-realixat: : r mines is fcn be eliminated time 

as prices r.a; again be advanced sufficiently to enable their rehabilitation. 



: *2 ; 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

027 292 906 3 




